DOCTORA L T H E S I SDOCTORA L T H E S I S

Luleå University of TechnologyDepartment of Business Administration and Social Sciences,

Division of Quality and Environmental Management

2005:32|: 02-5|: - -- 05⁄32 --

2005:32

Environmental Management Systems - Policy Implementation and Environmental Effects

THOMAS ZOBEL

Environmental Management Systems – Policy Implementation and

Environmental Effects

THOMAS ZOBEL

Doctoral Thesis no. 13 Division of Quality & Environmental Management

Environmental Management Systems – Policy Implementation and Environmental Effects

THOMAS ZOBEL

Luleå University of Technology Department of Business Administration and Social Science

Division of Quality & Environmental Management

This is for my Anna, for the support, the patience and the love

AcknowledgementsThe work presented in this thesis has been carried out during two time periods. At the first period, between the summer of 1999 and the winter of 2001, the work was performed at the Environmental Management Group at Luleå University of Technology. The work during the second period, between the spring of 2004 and the autumn of 2005, was carried out at the Division of Quality & Environmental Management at Luleå University of Technology. During the time of my Ph D studies, I have received generous support from a number of people who in different ways have made my work easier and improved my research.

First of all I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Jan-Ola Burman and Professor Bengt Klefsjö for guidance, support and invaluable comments throughout the work. I would also like to acknowledge Jan Bresky and Cecilia Almroth at Stora Enso for the contribution of empirical data to Paper I in this thesis and Anna Josefsson for the contribution of empirical data to Paper V.

During the research process I have been in contact with a large number of anonymous environmental and quality professionals in companies and other organisations. I am very grateful to all of them for taking the time to chare their knowledge, experience and enthusiasm with me.

Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the consulting company Centek, the Kempe foundations, the County Administrative Board of Norrbotten and the CF Environmental Fund.

Luleå, September 2005 Thomas Zobel

AbstractCorporate environmental management is becoming less driven by regulatory compliance and more driven by corporate strategy. In order to gain competitive advantage, systematically assure regulatory compliance and develop more efficient operations an increasing number of organisation adopt the environmental management system (EMS) tool.

Ever since the introduction of the EMS standard ISO 14001 in 1996, the effects of EMSs has been evaluated. Using meta-evaluation, the existing evidence on environmental effects of EMS is in this thesis evaluated. The reviewed studies are not consistent regarding benefits of EMS and it is therefore not possible to generally suggest a causal linkage between EMS implementation and improved environmental performance. Another meta-study in this thesis focused on the influence of different organisation characteristics on environmental effects of EMS. The results indicate that benefits of EMS seem to be inert of the drivers for adoption and the cultural setting. Large organisations as well as smaller ones benefit from EMS, but for different reasons. EMS appears to be a functional tool in the industrial sector but also in service organisations with complex environmental impact.

EMS has the disadvantage that it is developed with larger organisations in mind. A common approach used by small and medium-sized organisations to facilitate the implementation of EMSs is joint EMS and group certification. Through a case study, it was found that the approach, despite a few short cuts, is effective for small and micro-sized companies in achieving ISO 14001 certification as fast and cost effective as possible.

The identification and assessment of environmental aspects and the implementation of environmental policy through objectives, targets and programmes are in this thesis characterised by the use of two multiple-case studies. It is concluded that the implementation of environmental policy is strictly controlled by specifications in EMS standards. Some organisations are forced to design their environmental policy implementation in a way that is not suited for their type of organisation. Many organisations find it hard to measure their environmental goals and to set long-term or medium-long-term time periods for their goals. In addition, the organisations do not involve their employees to a very great extent in this policy implementation. Six problematic elements when identifying and assessing environmental aspects have been identified: definition of environmental aspects, update of aspects, aggregation of aspects, exclusion of business considerations in the assessment, employee and stakeholder participation, competence levels of people involved in the process. In addition, inadequacies exist regarding the reproducibility of the methods used for identification and assessment of environmental aspects. In order to improve the reproducibility, an approach to a new method is suggested which is based on life cycle analysis (LCA) methodology.

SammanfattningOrganisationers miljöarbete drivs mindre och mindre av lagkrav och mer och mer av deras övergripande strategi. För att kunna vinna marknadsfördelar, systematiskt uppfylla lagkrav och utveckla mer effektiva processer, väljer ett ökande antal organisationer att införa miljöledningssystem (MLS).

Ända sedan introduktionen av miljöledningsstandarden ISO 14001 har studier utförts för att utvärdera effekterna av MLS. Med hjälp av en meta-studie har existerande data gällande miljöeffekter av MLS utvärderats i denna avhandling. En granskning av tidigare studier visar att det inte är möjligt att fastställa ett causalt samband mellan införandet av MLS och förbättrad miljöprestanda. En andra meta-studie i denna avhandling har fokuserat på påverkan av olika organisationsfaktorer på miljöeffekternaav MLS. Resultaten visar att nyttan av MLS verkar vara oberoende av drivkrafterna för införande av MLS och den kulturella miljön. Både större och mindre organisationer verkar ha nytta av MLS, men av olika anledningar. MLS verkar vara ett fungerande verktyg i den industriella sektorn men även i serviceorganisationer med komplex miljöpåverkan.

MLS är främst utvecklat för större organisationer. Ett vanligt angreppssätt för att underlätta införandet av MLS i små och medelstora organisationer är gruppcertifiering. En fallstudie visar att gruppcertifiering, trots en del genvägar, är ett effektivt sätt för små- och mikroföretag att införa MLS.

Identifiering och värdering av miljöaspekter samt nedbrytning av miljöpolicy genom övergripande mål, detaljerade mål och förbättringsprogram har karakteriserats genom två multipla fallstudier. Studierna visar att nedbrytningen av miljöpolicy är strikt styrd av kraven i MLS-standarder. En del organisationer tvingas att utforma nedbrytningen av miljöpolicyn på ett sätt som inte är lämpat för dem. Många organisationer har svårt att mäta sina miljömål och att fastställa medellånga och långa tidsperioder för målen. Organisationerna verkar inte involvera sin anställda i särskilt stor omfattning vid nedbrytning av miljöpolicyn. Sex problematiska delmoments när miljöaspekter identifieras och värderas har identifierats; definition av miljöaspekt, uppdatering av miljöaspekter, gruppering av miljöaspekter, uteslutande av affärskriterier vid värdering av miljöaspekter, involvering av anställda och intressenter och kompetensnivåerna hos dem som utför arbetet. Dessutom finns brister i reproducerbarheten i rutinerna för identifiering och värdering av miljöaspekterna. Som ett försökt att förbättra reproducerbarheten har riktlinjer för en ny metod tagits fram. Metoden är baserad på livscykelanalys (LCA).

Appended papers Paper I. Zobel, T., Almroth C., Bresky J. & Burman, J-O. (2001). Identification and

assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: an approach to a new reproducible method based on LCA-methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(4): 381-396.

Paper II. Zobel, T. & Burman, J-O. (2004). Factors of importance in identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in Swedish organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(1): 13-27.

Paper III. Zobel, T. (2005). Characterization of the environmental policy implementation in an EMS context: a multiple case study in Sweden. Submitted for publication.

Paper IV. Schylander, E. & Zobel, T. (2003). Environmental effects of environmental management systems – evaluation of the evidence. Proceedings of Evaluation of Sustainability European Conference – EASY-ECO 2, Vienna, Austria, May 15-17, 404-415.

Paper V. Zobel, T. (2005). The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of joint EMS and group certification: a Swedish case study. Submitted for publication.

Paper VI. Zobel, T. (2005). The influence of organisational characteristics on the environmental benefits of environmental management systems. Submittedfor publication.

Table of contents 1 Introduction……………………………………………………… 1

1.1 Emergence of corporate environmental management………………….... 1 1.2 Emerging problems………………………………………………………… 3 1.3 Aim of the thesis………………………………………………….................. 3 1.4 Problem discussion and research questions………………………………. 3 1.5 Delimitations of the thesis…………………………………………….......... 6

2 Theoretical framework………………………………………….. 9 2.1 Environmental management………………………………………………. 9 2.2 Definition of EMS…………………………………………………………... 9 2.3 EMS standards…………………………………………………………….. 10 2.4 EMS description and implementation…………………………………… 12 2.5 Environmental aspects……………………………………………………. 13 2.6 Environmental policy implementation……………………………………18 2.7 EMS in small and medium-sized organisations…………………………. 20 2.8 Effects of EMS…………………………………………………………….. 23 2.9 Organisational characteristics with possible influence on…………….... 25 effects of EMS 2.10 Criticism of EMS………………………………………………………….. 27

3 Methodology……………………………………………………. 31 3.1 Available research strategies……………………………………………... 31 3.2 Chosen research strategies………………………………………………... 31 3.3 First multiple-case study………………………………………………….. 34 3.4 Second multiple-case study……………………………………………….. 36 3.5 Single-case study…………………………………………………………... 39 3.6 First meta-study…………………………………………………………… 41 3.7 Second meta-study………………………………………………………… 42 3.8 Analysis…………………………………………………………………….. 44 3.9 Reliability and validity……………………………………………………. 46

4 Research results………………………………………………… 49 4.1 Summary of Paper I………………………………………………………. 49 4.2 Summary of Paper II……………………………………………………… 54 4.3 Summary of Paper III…………………………………………………….. 58 4.4 Summary of Paper IV…………………………………………………….. 62 4.5 Summary of Paper V……………………………………………………… 65 4.6 Summary of Paper VI…………………………………………………….. 69

5 Discussion and conclusions……………………………………... 75 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 75 5.2 Problematic elements when identifying and assessing………………….. 75 environmental aspects (RQ1) 5.3 Approach to new method for identifying environmental……………….. 78 aspects (RQ2) 5.4 Characteristics of environmental policy implementation (RQ3)………. 80

5.5 Results regarding environmental effects of EMS in EMS……………… 82 evaluations (RQ4) 5.6 Advantages and shortcomings of joint EMS and group………………... 85 certification (RQ5) 5.7 Influence of organisational characteristics on environmental…………. 87 effects of EMS (RQ6) 5.8 Implications for research…………………………………………………. 90

References………………………………………………………….. 93

AppendicesAppendix 1: Questionnaire for the first multiple-case study Appendix 2: Interview guide and questionnaire for the second multiple-case

studyAppendix 3: Interview guide for the single-case study

Appended papers

1 Introduction In the beginning of the 1960s, people in the industrialised world started to become aware of environmental problems (Hunt & Johnson, 1995). These problems weremostly of a local nature originating from emissions to air and water, the use of toxicchemicals or accidents leading to negative environmental impact. Since then, environmental problems have developed first into regional problems (e.g. acidification and eutrophication of lakes and rivers) and then into global problems such as, for example, global warming or depletion of stratospheric ozone (Goetsch & Davis, 2001). As the environmental debate grew, legislators mainly in the United States, Western Europe and Japan, started to develop environmental legislation as a response to the increasing problems (Tibor & Feldman, 1996). The development of this legislation andthe corporate response to this legislation are briefly outlined below.

1.1 Emergence of corporate environmental management

The environmental legislation developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s was build upon command and control. With time, environmental legislation has become morecomplex and stringent (Berry & Rondinelli, 1998), but still based on command and control. Companies responded to the new demands by employing environmentalspecialists and developing different kinds of compliance assurance programmes. Thefocus of this early corporate environmental management was on end-of-pipetechnological equipment and regulatory compliance (Klassen & Whybark, 1999).Businesses tended to focus on the requirements of each regulation, without much thought given to integrating their procedures for regulatory compliance into a system (Tibor & Feldman, 1996). This focus on compliance assurance made the environmental management reactive and focused on putting out fires instead of preventing them from occurring.

For a variety of reasons, corporate environmental management has evolved since the beginning of the 1990s into a more systematic and proactive approach in many companies. One reason for this is the overall costs of environmental protection andregulatory compliance (Khanna & Anton, 2002). At the same time as theenvironmental legislation has become more complex and the companies have to focusmore and more on environmental issues, the costs for environmental protection haverisen. Non-compliance causes companies legal and ethical crises that are becoming more expensive to overcome (Berry & Rondinelli, 1998). Increased pressure is not only being applied from regulators but also from financial institutions. Investors start to consider environmental performance in companies before they make their investment decisions and lenders have become more aware of the risks involved withpoor environmental performance and are taking this into consideration when approving loans (Hoffman, 1997). A more systematic approach is also needed due to transformation of the environmental legislation. Command and control is no longer the only basis for this legislation. It has also started to include economic instruments such as incentive taxes, emission trading, pollution charges and carbon taxes on fuel use

1

(Tibor & Feldman, 1996). Finally, society’s focus on local environmental problems in the 1960s has shifted to concentrating on global threats such as global warming andstratospheric ozone depletion. The increased focus on global problems together with the occurrence of major accidents such as Bhopal, India in 1984 and Exxon Valdez, Alaska in 1989 have made people focus more on companies’ environmental impactand the social and environmental responsibility of companies (Ritchie & Hayes, 1998).

At the same time as corporate environmental management is becoming moresystematic, it is also becoming less driven by regulatory compliance and more driven by corporate strategy (Lent & Wells, 1996; Meisner Rosen, 2001). Many companieshave started to realise that end-of-pipe control is an inefficient and inadequate strategy for environmental protection. Instead, environmental frontrunners are addressing pollution prevention during the whole life cycle of their products, in product development, manufacturing, distribution and recycling of used products. Theresponsibility is moving away from the specialised environmental department to all employees. Top management is also becoming more aware of the importance ofenvironmental issues and is taking more direct responsibility and using information from the environmental department to revise products, processes and objectives (Kirkpatrick & Pouliot, 1996). Top management in environmentally proactive companies no longer view environmental compliance as a financial liability. Instead, they start to recognise the possibility for gaining a competitive advantage by improving their environmental performance and making cost savings by reducing waste, raw material purchases and energy use (Porter & van der Linde, 1995)

In order to effectively and systematically assure regulatory compliance, develop moreefficient operations and gain a competitive edge, an increasing number of companies are adopting the environmental management system (EMS) tool (Poksinska et al., 2003; Rivera-Camino, 2001; Gupta & Piero, 2003). Many of these EMSs are based on the international standard ISO 14001, for which organisations can be third-party certified, i.e. an independent organisation verifies that the system fulfils the requirements in the standard. Even though ISO 14001 has only been in use for about a decade, approximately 74,000 organisations in 130 different countries have beencertified according to the standard up until October 2004 (ISO World, 2004). In the beginning, the EMS tool was used mainly by industrial companies, but its use in the service sector and the public sector has become more common in recent years (Norén & von Malmborg, 2004; Honkasalo, 1999). Along with this increasing popularity and talk about positive benefits, critical voices have also been heard. A common criticism is that an ISO 14001-certification does not measure the actual environmental performance of an organisation (Krut & Gleckman, 1998; Ammenberg & Hjelm,2002). Even if an EMS actually leads to less environmental impact, the actual occurrence of improvements is difficult to verify externally (Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000).

2

1.2 Emerging problems

As the popularity of EMS increases and researchers and others argue about its impact , the need for evaluating the effect of the implemented systems also increases. The need for evaluations has in fact also been identified by researchers in areas of the world where EMS is common. The empirical research on the environmental and businesseffects of EMS implementation is extensive. During the last few years, this researchhas also been the focus of several meta-studies. These primary evaluations and meta-studies show an ambiguous picture regarding the positive effect of EMS on environmental performance. It seems as if successful EMS implementation depends ona number of organisational characteristics such as, for example, drivers for EMS adoption, organisation size, line of business and cultural setting (Chan & Li, 2001;Freimann & Walther, 2001). One might also expect the efficiency of an EMS to depend on the implementation approach as well as on the characteristics of all the different EMS elements. Research focusing on the factors influencing theenvironmental effects of EMS are rare. More knowledge regarding these factors and how they influence the environmental effects of EMS are needed, so that the tool and its implementation process can be further developed. Furthermore, the tool might notnecessarily be suitable for all types of organisations. Since EMS adoption is associated with considerable costs, it is important to evaluate the possibility of some types of organisations not benefiting from EMS adoption.

1.3 Aim of the thesis

The aim of this thesis is to generate knowledge regarding the use of the EMS tool sothat organisations can further improve their environmental performance.

1.4 Problem discussion and research questions

1.4.1 Research Question 1 Elements of an EMS in which environmental aspects are identified and assessed are among its most important components, since they determine the shape and focus of theentire system (Whitelaw, 1997; Cascio et al., 1996; ISO, 2004). An environmentalaspect can be defined as an “element of an organisation’s activities or products orservices that can interact with the environment” (ISO, 2004). The aspects, which haveor can have significant environmental impact, constitute an organisation’s so-called significant environmental aspects (ISO, 2004). These significant environmentalaspects constitute the basis for establishing the environmental policy, environmental objectives and targets, and improvement measures. In addition, significantenvironmental aspects are instrumental in determining which individuals should receive additional environmental training and which procedures and instructionsshould be documented. The environmental aspects are also the starting point when establishing environmental performance indicators, which help organisations to evaluate their environmental performance. Research is lacking on the processes of identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context. Better

3

knowledge regarding how organisations deal with environmental aspects is a prerequisite for the further development of existing methods. This lack of knowledge concerning the processes of identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context is the basis of the first research question in this thesis:

1. What are the problematic elements when identifying and assessing environmental aspects in an EMS context?

1.4.2 Research Question 2 Most EMSs around the world are implemented according to the international standardISO 14001 and the European Union regulation EMAS. These standards contain requirements that have to be fulfilled before third-party certification and/or registrationcan be achieved, but the method used to meet these requirements is optional. In otherwords, the criteria are stated, but the means of satisfying them are not. It is difficult for an organisation to fully satisfy the specified requirements and to do this in a credible way, since there is mostly a lack of guidelines for how this is to be accomplished(Ammenberg, 2003). The importance of the environmental aspects makes it especially important for the work with these processes to be structured in a transparent andstringent way. The transparency and stringency of these processes affect the reproducibility and thereby their credibility as well as the whole EMS. The proposed problems with transparency and stringency and thus also with reproducibility and credibility, form the basis of the second research question in this thesis:

2. How can the procedures for identifying and assessing environmental aspects in an EMS context be improved with regard to stringency and transparency?

1.4.3 Research Question 3 The establishment of an environmental policy and its implementation within an organisation through environmental objectives, targets and improvement measures, are important to enable organisations to continuously improve their environmentalperformance. In order to implement an EMS according to ISO 14001 and EMAS, an organisation must implement the environmental policy with the use of objectives, targets and improvement measures. However, the standards do not provide any details regarding how this should be done. Every organisation must therefore interpret the requirements in the standard individually. Little is known about this interpretation, andhow organisations have dealt with this implementation of environmental policy.Therefore, the third research question discussed in this thesis is:

3. What are the characteristics of the environmental policy implementation in an EMS context?

1.4.4 Research Question 4 As more and more organisations establish EMSs, it is important to investigate whether their implementation leads to actual improvements in environmental performance.Indeed, ever since EMS started to be common after the publications of ISO 14001 in

4

1996, its effects have been extensively evaluated by researchers all over the world. In recent years, some researchers have identified the need for reviewing the evidence regarding the effects of EMS in meta-studies covering studies that have already been published. These meta-studies generally focus on all types of effects from EMS adoption, e.g. cost savings, influence on the competitive situation, organisational effects and effects on environmental impact. No meta-study has focused solely onenvironmental effects of EMS adoption and it is not clear what conclusions are to be drawn from any existing evaluations regarding the environmental effects of EMSimplementation. Therefore, the following research question is addressed in this thesis:

4. What do previous EMS evaluation studies report regarding environmentaleffects of EMS implementation?

1.4.5 Research Question 5 Even though EMS is widely presented as a suitable tool for larger companies (Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996; Wells & Galbraith, 1999), some small and medium-sizedenterprises1 (SMEs) find it worthwhile to use resources and time to implement a system. However, SMEs commonly complain about the complexity of the EMS-standards and the high costs of system implementation and third-party certification (Hillary, 2004). This experienced complexity of the standard and the lack of human and financial resources are often the reasons why many SMEs choose not to adopt an EMS (Williams et al., 2000; Pimenova & van der Vorst, 2004). A number of approaches have been developed in order to facilitate the implementation of EMS in SMEs. One of these is the joint EMS and group certification approach, which has been commonly used in Swedish SMEs (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2002). Since the joint EMS approach is a way to reduce costs, one might expect this approach to lead to differentresults than a traditional EMS implementation approach. It is therefore important to address the following research question:

5. What are the advantages and shortcomings of joint EMS and group certification compared to a traditional certification approach?

1.4.6 Research Question 6 The great number of studies on the effects of EMS shows a wide range of results from EMS implementation. Almost all of them tend to treat organisations as one homogenous group and do not examine the effects of EMS implementation in relation to the differences between organisations and their business contexts. However, it does not seem likely that EMS or any other management tool suits all types of organisations(Hofstede, 2001). The degree of benefit from EMS is probably influenced by certain organisational characteristics (Chan & Li, 2001; Freimann & Walther, 2001).Therefore, the sixth research question that is addressed in this thesis is:

1 According to the European Union’s (EU) definition, a company is considered to be a small and medium-sizedenterprise (SME) if it has fewer than 250 employees and either the annual turnover is less than 40 million euros or the annual balance sheet total does not exceed 27 million euros. The company must also be an independententerprise, i.e. 25% or more of the capital or voting rights cannot be owned by larger enterprises (CEC, 1996)

5

6. What influence do organisational characteristics have on the environmental effects of EMS implementation?

1.4.7 Connection between research questions, studies and appended papersThe way the six research questions are addressed in the different papers included inthis thesis are displayed in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 The research questions addressed in this thesis and how they are addressed in the appended papers.

1.5 Delimitations of the thesis

Research questions 2 and 3 focus on the procedures for identifying and assessing environmental aspects and the process of environmental policy implementation used inpractice, and not on theoretically described procedures and processes. When

Research Question 6What influence do organisationalcharacteristics have on the environmentaleffects of EMS implementation?

Research Question 2How can the procedures for identifying andassessing environmental aspects in an EMScontext be improved with regard to stringencyand transparency?

Research Question 3What are the characteristics of theenvironmental policy implementation in anEMS context?

Paper I

Paper III

Paper V

Paper VI

Research Question 1Paper II What are the problematic elements when

identifying and assessing environmentalaspects in an EMS context?

Paper I

Research Question 4What do previous EMS evaluation studiesreport regarding environmental effects of EMSimplementation?

Paper IV

Research Question 5What are the advantages and shortcomings ofjoint EMS and group certification compared toa traditional certification approach?

6

addressing Research Question 6, the focus lies on whether or not differentorganisational characteristics influence the environmental effects of EMS implementation. No attempt to measure the influence of such organisationalcharacteristics is made.

This thesis focuses on the environmental effects of EMSs, such as concrete environmental improvements leading to reduced environmental impact and organisational effects connected to environmental improvement. Examples of suchorganisational effects are improved relationship with authorities, more effective environmental organisation, greater employee awareness regarding environmentalissues and reduced risks for accidents leading to environmental impact. The business and financial effects of EMS are not discussed in this thesis.

7

8

2 Theoretical framework 2.1 Environmental management

Growing environmental problems have resulted in a need to protect the world’secosystems, thus creating the field of environmental management. According to Burström (2000), there is no generally accepted definition of environmental management. However, many researchers and other professionals have tried to define it. North (1997) focuses on physical actions when he defines environmentalmanagement as “use and protection of natural resources through the application of environmentally sound practices”. Another, more comprehensive, definition is suggested by Gilpin (1996), in “a concept of care applied to localities, regions,catchments, natural resources, areas of high conservation value, cleaner processing andrecycling systems, waste handling and disposal, pollution and control generally, landscaping and aesthetics, enhancement of amenities”.

Journals that publish research within the field of environmental management seem to be divided into two main groups (Burström, 2000). One of these groups is concerned with society’s use and conservation of natural resources. The other group focuses on what Ammenberg (2003) calls “environmentally conscious management of society and/or different organisations”. The former group seems to refer to their field of research as ‘environmental management’, whereas the latter commonly refers to their field as ‘corporate environmental management’. No prevailing definition of corporateenvironmental management seems to exist. However, there seems to be an agreement among researchers that the term is associated with environment-related practices in companies and other organisations (Meima, 2002). In order to make corporate environmental management more structured and efficient, a number of tools have beendeveloped (Welford, 1998). Examples of such tools are environmental managementsystems (EMS), environmental auditing, life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental reporting. One of these tools, EMS, is the focus of this thesis.

2.2 Definition of EMS

As a response to the increasing demands laid down in environmental legislation during the 1970s and 1980s, many companies started to develop their own set of procedures.The focus of these procedures was to assure that mandated end-of pipe pollutioncontrol technologies were in place and functioning and this required permitapplications and monitoring reports to be submitted to the environmental authorities. These procedures are sometimes referred to as early EMS prototypes (Andrews et al., 2003). Environmentally proactive companies took these early EMS prototypes a step further during the 1980s, adding pollution prevention programmes and waste minimisation goals to compliance assurance.

The EMS standards that were introduced in the 1990s further developed the early EMS prototypes. According to the international standard ISO 14001, an EMS is a “part of an

9

organisation’s management system used to develop and implement its environmentalpolicy and manage its environmental aspects”. A management system is defined as “a set of interrelated elements used to establish policy and objectives and to achieve those objectives”. In order to fulfil this definition the management system must include“organisational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources. The British EMS standard BS7750 and the European Union’s EMAS regulation have similar definitions of EMS, in which environmental policy isstrongly emphasised. According to ISO 14001’s definition of EMS, to be complete it must not only include elements of monitoring and measurements and improvementprogrammes focused on single environmental issues but must also be built upon a holistic view including all environmental aspects of the whole life cycle of an organisation’s products or services. Further, the environmental policy must, accordingto ISO 14001, include a commitment to continual environmental improvement. Hence, in order to be defined as an EMS, a system must be based on the plan-do-study-actmanagement process (PDSA-cycle) pioneered by W. Edwards Deming for continuousimprovement of total quality management (Deming, 1993), making the improvement of corporate environmental management an ongoing cycle.

ISO 14001’s definition of EMS is used in this thesis. Hence, in order to be a complete EMS, the management system must not only include organisational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources, but also be based on a continuous improvement process. Thus, the early EMS prototypes developed in the 1970s and 1980s are not regarded as EMSs in this thesis.

2.3 EMS standards

One of the first sectors to realise the need for such a system was the chemical industry, which subsequently developed the Responsible Care System. The United Kingdom has a tradition of being early in the development of standards and they published the EMSstandard BS7750, which was built on the corresponding standard for quality assurance,BS5750. Concurrently, the European Union (EU) published another version of anEMS, the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), which is actually not a standard, but a voluntary EU regulation. Registration to EMAS was originallyavailable only for industrial companies, but after revision, the regulation was also opened for other types of organisations.

These EMS standards were adopted mostly by industry on a relatively small scale. However, when the international standard ISO 14001 was published in September1996, the implementation of EMS started to be more common in industry. In recent years, the interest for EMS in the service sector and the public sector has also increased (Norén & von Malmborg, 2004; Honkasalo, 1999). ISO 14001 is based on the same structure as BS7750 (Hunt & Johnson, 1995). It was also intentionally designed to be compatible with the international quality management standard ISO 90002 in language, approach and certification methods (Poksinska et al., 2003). A

2 ISO 9000 is not one single standard, but actually a series of standards. For the sake of simplicity, ‘ISO 9000’ isused as term for the whole series.

10

second version of ISO 14001 was introduced in 2004. No new requirements were added in the version but the text was clarified and the unanimity with ISO 9000 was improved (Swedish Standards Institute, 2005). The ISO 9000 standard was originally established as an ISO-standard in 1987 and has since then been up-dated in 1994 and 2000 (Bergman & Klefsjö, 2003). It has its roots in U.S. military standards, but was immediately inspired by BS5750 (Bergman & Klefsjö, 2003).

BS7750 was replaced by ISO 14001 in 1996 and is therefore no longer used in practice. However, some studies focusing on BS7750-certified organisations are reviewed and referred to in this thesis. Since BS7750 and ISO 14001 are similar, EMSs based on BS7750 are, in this thesis, considered equal to systems based on ISO14001. Since its revision during the late 1990s, EMAS has been based on the specifications in ISO 14001. Therefore, the specifications in EMAS are similar to those in ISO 14001 although some differences do exist (del Brío et al., 2001):

ISO 14001 is recognised worldwide, while EMAS is only recognised in theEuropean Union.EMAS has a compulsory initial review, while this is only recommended in ISO 14001.EMAS requires publication of an annual environmental statement, but ISO14001 does not. Under ISO 14001, an auditor verifies that the EMS has been correctly adopted and an accredited audit firm subsequently grants the system certificate; under EMAS, in addition to an audit of the system, the site’s environmental statement must be validated by an accredited verifier who is independent of the site’sauditor.

ISO 14001 is one of a series of standards developed by the International Organizationfor Standardization (ISO). ISO is a worldwide federation founded in 1947 to promotethe development of international manufacturing, trade and communication standards(Cascio, 1996). The ISO 14001 standard is therefore part of the ISO 14000-series, which has been developed to provide organisations with a structure for managingenvironmental impact. The standards within the ISO 14000-series include a broadrange of environmental disciplines (ISO, 2005):

Environmental management systems (ISO 14001 & ISO 14004) Description of environmental performance of products (ISO 14040-43, ISO14048 & ISO 14049) Improvement of environmental performance of products (ISO 14062) Information on environmental performance of products (ISO 14020-25) Communication of environmental performance (ISO 14063) Description of environmental performance of organisations (ISO 14031 & ISO14032)Description of vocabulary used in environmental management (ISO 14050)

11

Environmental auditing criteria for use by both internal and third-party auditors were previously described in a series of standards within the ISO 14000-series. However, since 2002 these standards have been replaced by one single standard, ISO 19011, with also covers auditing in a quality management system context (Almgren & Brorson, 2003).

The emergence and history of the EMS standards are only briefly outlined in thissection. The interested reader can find a more comprehensive review of thedevelopment of BS7750 and EMAS in Hunt & Johnson (1995). A detailed descriptionof the evolvement of ISO 14001 is present by Cascio (1996).

2.4 EMS description and implementation

An EMS is described here by outlining the implementation process of a system based on the requirements in ISO 14001. The subheadings correspond to subheadings in the standard. The corresponding phases in the PDSA-cycle are indicated in brackets.

2.4.1 Planning (Plan)Before the actual implementation of an EMS can take place, it is usually necessary for an organisation to establish the present situation regarding environmental activitieswithin the organisation. In order to do this, an initial environmental review is therefore often performed. This review usually includes identification of environmental aspects3,relevant environmental regulations and other external requirements as well as existing environmental procedures and instructions. When environmental aspects have beenidentified, they are assessed in order to determine which of them have or may have significant environmental impact. The initial review is a one-off procedure, but new environmental aspects should continue to be identified and assessed subsequent to theimplementation phase. The so-called significant environmental aspects form the basisof an environmental policy4. This policy is documented and communicated within the organisation and is made available to the public. The significant environmental aspects are also important input when establishing environmental objectives and targets. Otherrequired inputs are legal and other external requirements, technological options, operational and business requirements and the views of stakeholders. The objectivesand targets must be measurable and consistent with the environmental policy. Improvement programmes, including designation of responsibility, means and time-frame, are established in order to achieve the objectives and targets. After EMS implementation, the objectives, targets and improvement programmes are continuouslymonitored and where necessary corrected. As objectives and targets are achieved, new ones are established. The suitability of the environmental policy is also consciously assessed, but normally not as frequently as the objectives and targets.

3 An environmental aspect can be defined as an “element of an organisation’s activities or products or servicesthat can interact with the environment” (ISO, 2004).4 An environmental policy can be defined as the “overall intentions and direction of an organisation related to itsenvironmental performance as formally expressed by top management” (ISO, 2004).

12

2.4.2 Implementation and operation (Do)The roles and responsibilities regarding environmental issues are defined and documented. Top management appoints a specific management representative, who is responsible for ensuring that the EMS is maintained in accordance with ISO 14001 and for reporting the system’s performance to top management. All personnel who are involved in activities that have the potential to cause significant environmental impact receive specific environmental training. Procedures for internal communication among the organisation’s functions are established as well as procedures for external communication with stakeholders. Procedures and operation instructions to controlthose activities that have significant environmental impact are established and documented. In addition, procedures to identify potential accidents that may have animpact on the environment and how the organisation should react to such accidents are established. After EMS implementation, documented roles, responsibilities and procedures should continuously be up-dated.

2.4.3 Checking (Study) The organisation’s operations that have significant environmental impact are continuously monitored and measured in order to evaluate environmental performance. Regulatory compliance is also continuously evaluated. Procedures for dealing with nonconformities regarding requirements in ISO 14001, environmental regulations and procedures in the EMS are established. In order to determine whether the EMS fulfils the requirements in ISO 14001 and is working as intended, internal environmentalaudits are performed at planned intervals. Internal environmental auditors receive appropriate auditor training. An EMS is not considered properly implemented beforeprocedures for monitoring, dealing with nonconformities and internal audits are up and running within the organisation.

2.4.4 Management review (Act) The last step of the EMS implementation is a review of the EMS performed by top management. In this review, the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the EMS are assessed. This review should, after the implementation phase, be carried out at planned intervals. Some of the inputs to the management review are results from environmentalaudits, evaluation of regulatory compliance, extent to which environmental objectivesand targets have been met, changes in legal requirements and the organisation’senvironmental aspects and follow-up actions from previous reviews. The outputs of the review are, when necessary, actions related first and foremost to changes in environmental policy, objectives and targets but such actions may also be related to changes in other elements of the EMS.

2.5 Environmental aspects

2.5.1 Definition of environmental aspect The emergence of EMS in the shape of ISO 14001 has introduced the term ‘environmental aspect’, which was not used before the standard was published. Anenvironmental aspect is, according to ISO 14001, an “element of an organisation’s

13

activities or products or services that can interact with the environment” (ISO, 2004). This new term is often used instead of ‘environmental impact’ or ‘environmentaleffect’, and has been questioned for shifting the focus away from actual environmentalperformance (Gleckman & Krut, 1997). Bell (1997) disagrees with this criticism claiming that the term ‘environmental aspect’ is consistent with what most organisations can reasonably achieve. He states that most organisations can not be expected to be able to perform scientific environmental impact assessments and thatthe term ‘environmental aspect’ is suitable for the analysis of inputs and outputs in acompany.

According to Ammenberg (2003), ISO 14001’s definition of environmental aspect is unspecific and in combination with the lack of generally accepted guidance for specific use, it leaves a lot to be interpreted by the users. An aspect is often confusedwith the activity connected to it. According to Woodside et al. (1998), it is hard to reach agreement as to what constitutes an aspect versus an activity. Thus, theyconclude that there is no right or wrong way to define it. Brorson & Larsson (1999) take a somewhat different approach. They divide a specific environmental aspect into several “circumstances”, where “circumstances” include activities, operations, products and services that can cause environmental impact. For many authors, an environmental aspect is connected to a direct environmental impact (see, for example,Sayre, 1996; Johnson, 1997; Schoffman & Tordini, 2000). Thuning (1999) has asomewhat different view. He divides aspects into those originating from the production system (direct aspects) and those originating from the management system(indirect aspects). According to Thuning (1999), examples of indirect aspects mightinclude competence, demands on suppliers or environmental complaints. The terms “direct” and “indirect” aspects are recognised from EMAS, but they have a different meaning in the regulation. In EMAS, the meaning of the terms is connected to thedegree to which an organisation can control the aspects.

ISO 14001’s definition of environmental aspect is adapted in this thesis. However, since this definition is rather unspecific, the interpretation of this definition by the author of this thesis is presented here. An environmental aspect is normally an unwanted element of an activity that leads to negative environmental impact. The relationship between activity/product, aspects and impacts is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Environmental aspects are often different types of emissions, use of resources such as energy, water and raw materials or production of different kinds of waste. However, an environmental aspect can also be of more organisational nature, such as lack of communication and insufficient environmental training if these elements lead to impact on the environment.

14

Activity/product Environmental aspect Environmental impact

Figure 2.1 Relationship between activity/product, aspects and impacts as seen by the author of this thesis.

2.5.2 The role of environmental aspects in an EMSThe concept of environmental aspects is of great importance in an EMS, since it controls the shape and focus of large parts of the EMS (Cascio et al., 1996). Whitelaw (1997) even calls it “the most important part of the standard”. The importance of environmental aspects is illustrated in Figure 2.2 showing that they form the basis for environmental objectives, targets and improvement programmes. The aspects considered most significant determine which employees should receive environmentaltraining and which procedures should be established and documented. From theenvironmental aspects, indicators are developed in order to evaluate environmentalperformance.

Figure 2.2 The role of environmental aspects in an EMS according to ISO 14001 as seen by the author of thisthesis.

Combustion of oil

Metal surfacetreatment

Phosphate-emissionsto water

e.g. SOx-emissions to air Acid deposition

Eutrophication

Various impact fromenergy prododuction

Energy use

e.g.

e.g. Washing machine

Aspect identification

Aspect assessment Impact description

Training

Procedures & instructions

Establishment of objectives, targets &

programmes

Establishment of indicators

Environmentalperformanceevaluation

Laws and regulations Technological optionsFinancial, operationaland business requirementsStakeholder concerns

Definition of policy

Aspects & activities

Significantaspects

15

There seems to be agreement among EMS professionals that working with environmental aspects is somewhat confusing for organisations and that it is one of themost problematic parts of EMS implementation; see, for example, Cascio et al. (1996), Schoffman & Tordini (2000), Woodside et al. (1998).

2.5.3 Identification of environmental aspectsIt is suggested that environmental aspects are best identified in an environmentalreview. The importance of organisations not seeing the identification of aspects as a one-off procedure is also stressed (Ammenberg, 2003; Roberts & Robinson, 1998). However, advice on how, and how often, an update of the aspects should be done is rare. Focus lies on the initial identification, for which the advice in the literature is much more extensive. For example, Tibor & Feldman (1996) and Schoffman & Tordini (2000) suggest initial identification of aspects associated with regulatory and legal requirements. The argument is that these regulations already reflect the most important environmental aspects. However, identifying aspects in areas not regulated is more difficult, and must be dealt with in a different way. For aspects in non-regulated areas, some authors prefer a process-oriented approach, whereby processeslarge enough for meaningful examination, but small enough to be clearly understood, are identified as a first step. When these processes are identified, environmental aspects associated with each process can be identified (Schoffman & Tordini, 2000; Sayre, 1996). Roberts & Robinson (1998) go a step further when they suggest that the first level of processes identified should first be separated into smaller process steps before the environmental aspects for each of the individual process steps are identified. Some authors suggest a simpler approach, in which authors use the wording in ISO14001 stating that the organisation must establish and maintain procedures to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products, and services as a basis (Woodside et al., 1998; Tibor & Feldman, 1996; Johnson, 1997). According to this suggestion, organisations should consider areas such as emissions to air, discharges to water, waste management and contamination of land, when they identify aspects directly from activities, products or services that may have an environmental impact.

2.5.4 Assessment of environmental aspects Ammenberg (2003) claims that the difficulties in assessing environmental aspects originate from a lack of guidelines in ISO 14001. He receives support from Whitelaw (1997), who states that the assessment is problematic because of the absence of any universal tool for the comparative assessment of different environmental impacts.Since no universal tools exist, the assessment of environmental aspects is associated with a great deal of subjectivity (Whitelaw, 1997). The adopted methods forassessment of environmental aspects therefore differ considerably among different organisations (Ammenberg, 2003). Subjectivity makes the outcome of the assessment,the significant aspects, dependent on the people conducting the assessment. A variety of methods are used for the assessment of aspects, since ISO 14001 leaves the methodfor establishing significant aspects open for each individual organisation. Woodside et al. (1998) suggest that available assessment methods can be divided into three different approaches: consideration of selected documented criteria without any weighing factors; consideration of selected documented criteria with weighing factor;

16

and judgement of environmental professionals. According to Whitelaw (1997), the most widely used method is based on criteria with weighing factors, where riskassessment is also considered. Risk assessment has in this case two components: the likelihood of an incident and the gravity of the incident. Examples of assessmentcriteria suggested in EMS guidebooks are (Roberts & Robinson, 1998; Tibor &Feldman, 1996; Woodside et al., 1998):

The scale of the impact The severity of the impact The probability of occurrence The permanence of impact The actual or potential regulatory/legal exposure The difficulty of changing the impact The concerns of stakeholders

Authors of EMS guidebooks are clearly divided into two groups: those that onlysuggest environmental concerns when assessing the aspects (see, for example, Tibor & Feldman, 1996; Schoffman & Tordini, 2000) and those that also suggest business concerns (see, for example, Robert & Robinson, 1998; Sayre, 1996). Whitelaw (1997)uses only environmental concerns in the assessment, but he also adds two extra factors to the process: if an aspect is associated with legislative requirements or if there is a lack of information on which to base a satisfactory appraisal, the aspect shouldautomatically become a significant environmental aspect.

2.5.5 Identifiers and assessors of environmental aspectsA majority of the authors of the publications referred to in Section 2.5.2 and 2.5.3concentrate on how the identification and assessment of environmental aspects shouldbe carried out. The question of who should perform these tasks is most often left open.However, it is fairly obvious that most authors think that environmental aspects are an issue for top management or a single representative of top management. Schoffman &Tordini (2000) are an exception. They state that, “it is important not to assume that upper management alone can identify an organisation’s environmental aspects”. Instead, they suggest that input from all levels in an organization and as manyfunctions as possible is important to adequately identify aspects. Whitelaw (1997) agrees with Schoffman & Tordini when he states that individuals who have been employed for many years should participate in the identification process, since they have collected a wealth of useful knowledge over the years. Woodside et al. (1998) give some advice regarding assessment of environmental aspects. They suggest thatthe determination of significant aspects should be based on the judgement of theenvironmental operations officer and the environmental coordinators, with advice fromother professionals, when needed.

17

2.6 Environmental policy implementation

2.6.1 Environmental policy implementation in an EMS context One of the central elements of an EMS is the formulation and documentation of anorganisation’s overall intentions and direction of the organisation related to its environmental performance in an environmental policy (Ammenberg, 2003; ISO,2004). With this policy and the significant environmental aspects as a basis, environmental objectives, targets and improvement programmes are established. Theseobjectives, targets and programmes must then be deployed and shared through thewhole organisation. The term used for the establishment and deployment of objectives, targets and improvement programmes is in this thesis ‘environmental policy implementation’. In contrast to the environmental policy, objectives and targets concretise what should actually be improved. Targets are usually fairly specific, measurable and time-framed goals, whereas objectives are goals that are more specific than the stated ambitions in the policy, but somewhat generic in scope and purpose(Sayre, 1996).

The theoretical route for implementing the environmental policy outlined above appears relatively straightforward. In practice, however, most organisations find it areal challenge to establish workable objectives and targets (Bird, 1997). According to Bird (1997), it is one thing to theoretically determine what must, should and could be done in order to improve an organisation’s environmental performance, but quite another to determine whether or not it would be possible to implement changes in the context of the organisation’s overall dynamics. Many organisations have found that it is no trivial task to establish objectives and targets that can stand up to challengesposed by competing business priorities and failing employee commitment.

2.6.2 Theoretical base for environmental policy implementationThe implementation of environmental policy, as it is outlined in ISO 14001, has itsbasis in Edwin Locke’s goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968) and management by objectives (MBO), originally proposed by Peter Drucker (Drucker, 1954). In short, goal-setting theory proposes that specific goals increase performance, that difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than easy goals do; and that feedback leads to higher performance than non-feedback (Latham &Yukl, 1975; Tubbs, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990). Four ingredients are common to MBOprogrammes: goal specificity, participative decision-making, an explicit time period, and performance feedback (Carroll & Tosi, 1973; Rodgers & Hunter, 1991).

The major ingredients in MBO correspond well with goal-setting theory. The only area of disagreement relates to the issue of participation. Participative decision-making in strongly advocated by MBO, whereas goal-setting demonstrates that assigned goalsfrequently work just as well. However, according to goal-setting theory, participation is beneficial because it appears to induce individuals to establish more difficult goals and increases goal acceptance (Erez et al., 1985; Robbins, 1996). This is due to the

18

fact that people are more likely to accept an objective, because they are more committed to choices in which they have a voice (Erez et al., 1985).

2.6.3 Quality policy deploymentMBO has been further developed in the quality management area, where the process by which a vision is realised within an organisation is called policy management orpolicy deployment. To emphasise that it is a quality-related vision that is being deployed, the phrase quality policy deployment (QPD) is sometimes used. QPD resembles MBO, but some differences exist. The major difference is that MBO, as it is applied in practice, focuses mainly on results, whereas QPD focuses more on themeans to reach the desired results (Bergman & Klefsjö, 2003).

The way QPD is structured differs somewhat in the quality management literature. Eureka & Ryan (1990) suggest a QPD process divided into a series of eight basicsteps. These eight steps are briefly outlined below. This does not mean that all eight steps will be needed in every organisation. The process must be customised to fit each organisation’s own unique context.

Step 1: Specify the organisation’s mission A mission is derived from the major organisational visions specified by uppermanagement. This mission describes what the organisation wants to achieve and it must not change too often.

Step 2: Establish long- and medium-term goals Upper management, working in conjunction with middle management, establishes long-term (seven to ten years) and medium-term (three to five years) goalssupporting the mission. Actions to support the goals are established and prioritised.

Step 3: Gather facts and conduct analysis necessary for setting annual plan Information and data about the organisation’s present situation and status, availableresources, competition and economic conditions are gathered and analysed.

Step 4: Establish the annual plan (both goals and actions)After checking and analysing the previous year’s annual plan, market conditions and the status of competition, the coming year’s plan can be established. The plan becomes process-oriented through a ‘catchball’ procedure involving upper and middle management.

Step 5: Specify measures for evaluation Measures for evaluation for each goal and action are identified. These measures, which are targets with quantifiable values, are used to track progress from theworking level to the overall goals.

Step 6: Deploy the annual plan The annual plan is deployed within the organization to each division, department,section and individual.

19

Step 7: Execute the annual planThe annual plan is implemented in the daily work. The measurement system created in Step 5 is implemented and used to make an evaluation possible.

Step 8: Perform periodic evaluationsUpper management reviews the results and the implementation of the annual policy every three months and middle management does the same once a month. Once or twice a year, the organisation should institute a quality-control audit and diagnosis.

The use of a so-called ‘catchball’ procedure in step 4 is strongly emphasised in QPD.This procedure is a way to resolve the differences that arise when goals are establishedon different levels within an organisation. When upper management establishes the annual goals, they discuss the goals and the actions needed to reach the goals with middle management. Goals and actions cannot be established before consensus is reached. The same discussions are later conducted between middle management and supervisors and between supervisors and line personnel. This way, agreement aboutthe annual plan is reached throughout the whole organisation.

2.7 EMS in small and medium-sized organisations

2.7.1 Environmental importance of SMEsAccording to the European Union’s (EU) definition, a company is considered to be asmall and medium-sized enterprise (SME) if it has fewer than 250 employees and either the annual turnover is less than 40 million euros or the annual balance sheet total does not exceed 27 million euros. The company must also be an independent enterprise, i.e. 25% or more of the capital or voting rights cannot be owned by largerenterprises (CEC, 1996). Companies adhering to this definition account for 99.8% of all companies in the EU, for 66% of the total employment and for 65% of businessturnover (Ilomäki & Melanen, 2001). The SME sector globally accounts for about70% of gross domestic product (GDP), although this may vary considerably fromcountry to country (O’Laoire & Welford, 1996).

Previous research has shown that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are important not only from a financial point of view but that the sector also has aconsiderable environmental impact (Tilley, 1999; Fay, 2000; Hillary, 2000; Hoevenagel & Wolters, 2000) The extent of this impact is not known, but according to Hillary (1995), SMEs could be contributing up to 70% of all industrial pollution. However, it should be noted that this figure is a rough estimation and not based on empirical data. Nevertheless, several authors state that SMEs are collectively responsible for a significant portion of the total environmental burden (de Bruijn &Lulofs, 2000; ECOTEC, 2000; Starkey, 1998).

In addition to great collective environmental impact, many SMSs are seldom supervised by environmental authorities or have any contact with them, and therefore probably have fairly poor control over their impacts (Ammenberg et al., 1999). These facts make it important for SMEs to have access to tools that can help them achieve

20

compliance and structure and improve their environmental activities. The need for such tools is even more enhanced by the fact that many SMEs are often situated in light industrial areas, frequently located near residential areas (Williams et al., 2000). One tool that can be applicable to SMEs is the environmental management system (EMS).

2.7.2 Barriers to EMS adoption in SMEs EMSs are often presented as a suitable tool for larger companies (Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996; Wells & Galbraith, 1999). It is also clear that EMS has predominantly been adopted by large companies (Merritt, 1998; Gribble & Dingle, 1996). Thesuitability of EMS and its most common standard, ISO 14001, for SMEs has often been debated (Gerstenfeld & Roberts, 2000; Hutchinson & Hutchinson, 1995; Palmer& van der Vorst, 1996). It has even been suggested that the viewpoints and attitudes of SMEs have not been taken into account at all when creating the standard and therefore it is ill-suited to such companies (Gleckman & Krut, 1997). Unfortunately, strategies and tools primarily designed for large organisations are often uncritically transferred to smaller organisations (Holt et al., 2000; Dandridge, 1979; Welsh & White, 1981).EMS is no exception (Gleckman & Krut, 1997; Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996). Even if the suitability of EMS, according to the specifications in ISO 14001, can be questioned, many SMEs find it worth the effort to use resources and time to implementa system and certify the company (Swedish Environmental Management Council, 2004). Some of these SMEs might not even have the opportunity to choose whether to adopt an EMS and to seek certification. It can be a de facto requirement from one or several customers. One example of this is the automobile industry, where automobilemanufacturers such as General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, Ford and Toyota have adopted ISO 14001 and require their suppliers to do the same as a condition for continuing to do business (Morrow & Rondinelli, 2002).

Many SMEs complain about the complexity of the ISO 14001-standard and the high costs of system implementation and third-party certification. Indeed, the experiencedcomplexity of the standard and the lack of human and financial resources are often mentioned as reasons why many SMEs choose not to adopt an EMS (Williams et al., 2000; Hillary, 2004; Pimenova & van der Vorst, 2004). It is clear that many SMEsneed an implementation approach that is tailored for smaller companies to be able to adopt EMS and to go for certification (Merritt, 1998; Hillary, 1995; Williams et al., 2000). If an EMS approach can be tailored to SMEs, it has been shown that a majorityof them would consider implementing one (Williams et al., 2000).

2.7.3 Approaches to facilitate EMS implementation in SMEs To overcome the obstacles of EMS implementation, SMEs have a number of specially developed approaches from which to choose. They can be classified in the followingfour categories, (Dalhammar, 2000):

Incremental approaches with rewards on the road towards certification(Swedish Environmental Management Council, 2004; The Acorn Trust, 2004);

21

Mentoring (Tunnessen, 2000; Wells & Galbraith, 1999); Standardised solutions for EMS implementation (Miljöledarna Ciconia AB, 2004; Entropy International, 2004); Joint EMS and group certification (Ammenberg et al., 1999; Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2003).

This thesis focuses solely on the joint EMS and group certification approach since thishas been a common approach in recent years and it seems as if its popularity is growing among SMEs (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2003). In Sweden, joint EMS and groupcertification has received a lot of attention and today there are a great number of company groups working with shared EMSs. Some of these have completed a group certification, or are planning to do so in the near future (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2003).In May 2002, 24 industrial estates, involving 450 companies and 7 industrial groups, have used the joint approach in Sweden (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2002). These figures can be compared to the total number of ISO 14001-certified companies in Sweden which amounted to 2,4645 at the end of 2002 (Environcert, 2004), indicating thatapproximately 20 % of all ISO 14001-certified companies in Sweden have used thejoint approach. The joint EMS and group certification approach as it was originally used is presented in more detail in the following section.

2.7.4 Joint EMS and group certification A joint EMS can be adopted by companies that are spread geographically, but the most practical and probably the most rewarding type is one that includes a number of companies within a limited geographical area, e.g. an industrial estate (Dalhammar, 2000). In a joint EMS, certain parts of the system are common for the participating companies, but some are specific for each individual company. If the companies choose to go for ISO 14001 certification, they can do so at the same time by beingaudited by the same certification body. This is often referred to as group certification (Ammenberg, 1999). The literature covering the joint EMS approach is limited. Only two publications have been found that present the approach; Ammenberg (1999) and Dalhammar (2000). The presentation of joint EMS and group certification below has been inspired by those two publications. It describes how a joint EMS is commonlyimplemented, although this probably varies considerably between different joint EMS projects.

When implementing a joint EMS, an environmental group is formed, consisting of onerepresentative from each company in the group. The group selects a few individuals who form a steering committee, which in turn selects a central coordinator. A supportgroup supports the central committee and assists the company coordinators. The support group can consist of consultants and other stakeholders, e.g. financiers, municipalities and regional authorities. The central coordinator can be selected from the participating companies, but it could also be someone from outside the group. When the joint EMS approach was originally used, the central coordinator was

5 The information is continuously collected from approved certification bodies. The statistics does not take intoaccount the companies which has lost their certificate during the year.

22

employed by a consulting firm that was a member of the group (Ammenberg et al., 1999). The central coordinator is responsible for performing a variety of tasks such as preparing documents, identifying and communicating common legal requirements,raising interest and commitment, calling meetings, handling minutes and planningenvironmental training. In addition, the central coordinator also functions as head of the steering committee. The steering committee is responsible for the implementation of the EMS and the planning of environmental audits. The committee also issues newsystem documentation and reviews existing documents, focusing on those that are common for the group. Another important activity is evaluation of training needs and training content. During the EMS implementation, the committee meets twice a month. Subsequently, however, certification meetings are held whenever needed or at least once every three months. The company coordinators in the EMS group meet regularly to make various decisions, to receive additional training and provide information about and discuss new or revised documents. During the EMS implementation process, the group meets once a month but after certification, every second month is considered sufficient.

The documentation of the joint EMS consists of an environmental manual that iscommon for all companies, a company-specific manual and a company-specific compilation of records. For the majority of the documents in the company-specificmanuals, the central coordinator prepares documentary templates. The basis of the joint EMS approach is that all parts of the EMS, except company-specific objectives, procedures and instructions, can be shared by all companies in the environmental group.

2.8 Effects of EMS

Since the interest for implementing EMS is growing worldwide, researchers around the world have identified the need for evaluating its effects. Along with the increasingnumber of evaluations, reviews covering empirically based studies started to beperformed in the late 1990s. In order to present a picture of the present knowledgeregarding environmental effects of EMS, an overview of the results in the major meta-studies on the system’s effects are presented below.

In a review performed by Ruth Hillary in 1999, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were in focus (Hillary, 1999; Hillary, 2004). She focused not only on possible benefits, but also on barriers and drivers for EMS adoption when performing a detailed review of 33 studies carried out in EU. Hillary’s study showed that SMEs found real and valuable benefits from implementing formal EMSs. Communication channels,skills, knowledge and attitude all improved when SMEs adopted the system. They also experienced positive outcomes in terms of improved environmental performance, assured legal compliance and energy and material efficiencies. In addition, the enterprises’ image was enhanced and dialogue and relationships with stakeholdersimproved. The major drawback with EMS implementation was that more resourcesthan expected, in terms of costs, time and skills, were required.

23

In 2000, Ulrich Steger published a review covering 24 original studies (Steger, 2000). In Steger’s paper, an attempt is presented to assess the impact EMS has had on organisations that focus on ecological goals and impacts, the economic cost-benefit ofEMS, organisation and information. The review is based mainly on German-speaking evaluations of smaller empirical investigations of EMS. Steger (2000) reports that the use of EMS leads to a more effective organisation flow, a higher degree of legalcompliance and a more comprehensive exploitation of the “win-win” potential of ecological and economical benefits. However, the effect on concrete environmentalimprovements was found to be limited. A majority of the companies covered claimedthat they would have achieved their environmental goals anyway, regardless of the EMS.

Two years later, a review of 13 Austrian evaluation studies of EMS was performed(Pecher et al., 2002). This study focused on environmental effects, financial effectsand image benefits. No general conclusions could be drawn from this study since theEMSs in some evaluations showed a good and strong effect while in others showed none at all. One of the conclusions in this study was that future evaluation studies should choose their research methodology more carefully than previous evaluations.

A doctoral thesis presented by Ammenberg (2003) contained a review of other studies on the effects of EMSs. He found that the results regarding the effects of EMSs were divergent. According to him, it is not possible to determine whether organisations thathave implemented an EMS have better environmental performance than organisationswithout an EMS, based on large statistical studies using environmental performanceindicators. Studies mainly based on the perceptions of environmental managersgenerally seem to present more positive results. These studies also indicate that EMSs lead to a variety of environmental management activities, but the researchers have not been able to find a causal relation between these activities and reduced environmental impact. Two thirds of the reviewed studies covering effects on regulatory compliancereport that EMS implementation leads to improved compliance. EMSs also seem to have a positive effect on emergency preparedness and the actual number of environmental accidents. Ammenberg (2003) concludes that the EMS tool can be used to effectively reduce environmental impact. However, the existing evidence regardingthe positive effect on environmental performance is not sufficient for concluding that EMS implementation generally results in reduced environmental impact. In addition, it is suggested that more attention should be given to methodological issues when effects of EMSs are studied.

To summarise the findings in the reviews outlined above, studies on environmental effects show a wide range of results stemming from EMS implementation. There seems to be agreement among the reviewers that EMS helps to improve organisationalefficiency with regard to environmental issues. However, they disagree when it comes to the issue whether these organisational improvements actually result in concrete environmental improvements and reduced environmental impact.

24

2.9 Organisational characteristics with possible influence oneffects of EMS

One reason why studies on the environmental effects of EMSs show such a wide range of results might be that many of them tend to treat organisations as one homogenousgroup. The studies seldom examine the effects of EMS implementation in relation to the differences between organisations and their business context. However, it does notseem likely that EMS, or any other management tool, suits all types of organisations.The environmental effects of EMS adoption are probably influenced by certain organisational characteristics (Chan & Li, 2001; Freimann & Walther, 2001).Examples of such characteristics are drivers for EMS adoption, organisation size, business sector, cultural setting, time after EMS adoption, third-party certification, level of environmental activities before EMS adoption, level of regulatory control and experience with quality management system before EMS adoption. The first fourorganisational characteristics are given special attention in this thesis and the motivesfor their possible influence on EMS effects are therefore presented below.

2.9.1 Drivers for EMS adoptionA connection between the drivers behind ISO 9000 certification and the effects on theoverall certification benefits has been found in studies on effects of ISO 9000-basedmanagement systems. Gotzamani & Tsiotras (2002) found in their study of ISO 9000-certified Greek companies that the benefits are greater for companies that implement the standard focusing mainly on true quality improvements in their internal operationsand their final products or services. The results from the Greek study confirm the findings in previous studies performed by Douglas et al. (1999) and Withers & Ebrahimpour (2000). Douglas et al. (1999) found, through a case study, that benefits from ISO 9000 implementation can only be achieved if the drivers for certification are internal and if it is part of an overall quality strategy. Additional support was found by Withers & Ebrahimpour (2000), who found that ISO 9000 implementation had a positive effect on quality performance as reflected by eight different dimensions6, but the degree to which the quality was improved was influenced by the reasons for implementation. Since an ISO 9000-based system is similar in its structure to an ISO 14001-based system, one might expect organisations that implement an EMS because they have a strong desire to achieve true environmental improvements instead of short-term image advantages to also experience greater environmental benefits. Such aconnection is suggested by Wallace-Jones (1998), who states that a drive to become ISO 14001-certified solely for the sake of certification may erode the value of EMS as a tool for better environmental management. Ilomäki & Melanen (2001) argue that an EMS should be implemented mainly for environmental reasons rather than reasonsthat are more business-related. They state that if the EMSs and the environmental activities are based on business-as-usual thinking and only aim to satisfy stakeholder demands, the achieved benefits will soon be lost.

6 Performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality.

25

2.9.2 Organisation sizeAs presented in Section 2.6.2, it has been suggested that the EMS tool is not badly suited for SMEs (Gleckman & Krut, 1997). Indeed, the experienced complexity of thetool and the lack of human and financial resources make many SMEs hesitate to adopt an EMS (Hillary, 2004; Pimenova & van der Vorst, 2004). These barriers, together with the proposed inappropriateness of the EMS tool for smaller organisations, mightsuggest that larger organisations will gain more from EMS implementation than smaller ones.

2.9.3 Business sector A third factor that might have an impact on the benefits of an EMS in an organisationis the complexity of the organisation’s environmental impact. This complexity is not always easy to assess for an organisation, but in this thesis it is assumed that different business sectors are associated with different levels of environmental impactcomplexity. EMS is a tool to make the environmental activities within an organisation more structured and the environmental improvements more systematic. Theoretically, an organisation with a large number of environmental aspects that affect the natural environment in many different ways (great complexity) will therefore achieve more benefits from EMS adoption than an organisation with less complex environmental impact. Indeed, EMS was originally developed primarily for businesses such as publicly traded corporations and privately owned firms that are usually associated with great environmental impact (Andrews et al., 2003). However, even if EMS originally was designed mainly for industry, many service organisations such as local authorities and government facilities, have also adopted the system (Riglar, 1997; Honkasalo, 1999; Emilsson & Hjelm, 2002).

2.9.4 Cultural setting The last organisational characteristic that is studied in this thesis is the cultural setting in which the organisation operates. Management tools are commonly assumed to beuniversal solutions for organisations all over the world (Røvik, 2000). However, since the 1980s this assumption has been challenged by researchers in the management field. One of these, Geert Hofstede, claims that creators of different management tools are strongly influenced by the constraints of the environment in which they grow up and work (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, a tool is probably most effective in the culture setting where it was created. In contrast to many other management tools, EMSaccording to ISO 14001 has been developed through international consensus (Cascio,1996), but it is probably fair to make the assumption that some countries have had more influence than others.

To capture the dimension of national attitudes and behaviour and their influence on benefits of EMS, Hofstede’s concept of the ‘four cultural dimensions’ is chosen. The four dimensions are (Hofstede, 1997):

26

i. Power distance. Do employees approach their boss directly without fear (lowpower distance)? Or do they prefer a paternalistic supervisor (large power distance)?

ii. Individualism. Are people expected to look after themselves (individualism)? Or are they lifelong members of a close-knit community (collectivism)?

iii. Masculinity. Are men supposed to be tough and women to be modest(masculinity)? Or are men and women both supposed to be modest(femininity)?

iv. Uncertainty avoidance. Are people worried about uncertainty in the future (high uncertainty avoidance)? Or does uncertainty in the future not affect them (low uncertainty avoidance)?

These dimensions are used in this thesis to cluster different countries into largergroups according to scores set by Hofstede for the dimensions in the different countries. Each country’s score in the dimensions is also used when evaluating theimpact of cultural setting on the success of EMS. It is quite possible that other concepts, such as, for example, Michael Porter’s ‘national diamond’ (Porter, 2001), are also suited to be used in an analysis of the influence of cultural setting on the success of EMS. However, in this thesis, the influence of organisational characteristics on the effects of EMS is studied by reviewing already published studies and Hofstede’s framework has the major advantage that the nationalities of the organisations in each study are known.

2.10 Criticism of EMS

Advocates of EMS argue that the system can provide a structured and systematic way to deal with environmental issues in an organisation (Tibor & Feldman, 1996). Organisations with poor environmental performance can use the system as a valuable management tool and the system can provide more ambitious organisations regarding environmental issues with a benchmark that can be used to identify weaknesses in the existing management system (Sunderland, 1998). It is claimed in the literature that the EMS standards have shifted the focus onto the fact that environmental performanceimprovement is a business issue, and that effective environmental management can both reduce the environmental impact and generate cost savings and business opportunities (Kirkpatrick & Pouliot, 1996). It is often assumed that a good environmental performance can attract new customers, increase competitiveness and generate good financial returns.

However, not everybody is convinced of the usefulness of EMS. Brophy et al. (1995) dismiss not only EMS but all voluntary commitments regarding environmental issues, claiming that cost minimisation is the main driver for organisations working towards environmental improvements. They state that since environmental degradation has traditionally been cheaper than environmental protection, the effectiveness of the voluntary approach is limited. Newton & Harte (1997) challenge voluntary environmental commitment from a different perspective, suggesting that it has been

27

used by some organisations in an attempt to postpone consideration of the need for stricter state interventions.

Boiral & Sala (1998) found in a study of plants specialised in aluminium productionthat few managers mentioned environmental improvements due to the EMSimplementation. They concluded that unlike investments in technology, investments in EMS implementation do not guarantee any improvements in environmentalperformance. Steger (2000) argues that EMS might promote some of the dimensions in sustainable development, but that EMSs according to the existing standards do not consider the social dimension. Lastly, Pfliegner (1997) claims that EMSs are potential barriers to trade and might be part of ‘green protectionism’.

Gleckman & Krut (1998) are particularly critical of ISO 14001 as a tool for corporate environmental impact improvement. They see an ISO 14001-based system as aninadequate tool, since it does not require certified organisations to measureenvironmental performance nor to disclose results. They argue that there is no way of externally verifying that improvements in environmental performance actually occur. Morrison et al. (2000) are also critical regarding ISO 14001’s lack of transparency.This runs counter to the majority of international norms, which increase corporate accountability by providing an opportunity for the evaluation of companies’ environmental management practices and performance by external interests. Ammenberg & Hjelm (2002) draw similar conclusions in a study of 26 small and medium-sized companies in Sweden. He claims that ISO 14001 gives the companies the possibility to interpret and apply the standard’s specification in a way that makes it possible for them to get a certificate without achieving any real improvements. It has also been suggested that EMSs based on ISO 14001 and other existing standards are not sufficient as tools to lead businesses on the road towards sustainable development(Spencer-Cooke, 1997).

A few years before ISO 14001, the ISO 9000 standard was also subject to extensive criticism (Struebing, 1996; Brown et al., 1998). This criticism is similar to the criticism of ISO 14001. According to Curkovic & Pagell (1999), the main criticism of ISO 9000 concentrates on a limited focus on continuous improvement and customersatisfaction, the cost of certification, the ability of a certified company to produce low quality output and the amount of seemingly unnecessary documentation. In addition to this, Bergman & Klefsjö (2003) claim that the versions of ISO 9000 from 1987 and 1994 were defensive and product-oriented rather than progressive and process-oriented, represented a minimum of effort to ensure good product quality, hardly mentioned quality work in administrative support functions and that the standard wasbadly suited to service organisations. Brown (1994) believes ISO 9000-certification istoo costly and consists of a pursuit of quality certificates rather than a pursuit of quality. Due to the certificate focus, ISO 9000 is often implemented by satisfying only the minimum necessary requirements (Sun, 2000). Curkovic & Pagell (1999) state that the necessary requirements are sometimes not sufficient for improvement and that it istherefore possible to be ISO 9000-certified and still manufacture poor-quality products. Due to the extensive criticism, ISO 9000 has gone through a transformation

28

before the latest version was introduced in 2000. This version of ISO 9000 maintains a greater focus on processes, customer satisfaction, user needs and continuous improvements of organisational processes (Poksinska et al., 2002).

29

30

3 Methodology3.1 Available research strategies

According to Yin (1994), five major research strategies are available in social sciences; experiment, survey, archival analysis, history and case study. The choice ofresearch strategy should be based on the aim or research questions that are addressed(Holme & Solvang, 1991). In addition, the choice of research strategy is influenced by the extent of the researcher’s control over the actual behavioural event and if the research focus is on contemporary or non-contemporary events (Yin, 1994). The relevant situations for different research strategies are displayed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Relevant situations for different research strategies (Yin, 1994).Strategy Form of research

questionRequires control over behavioural events?

Focuses on contemporary events?

Experiment How, why Yes YesSurvey Who, what, where, how

many, how muchNo Yes

Archival analysis Who, what, where, how many, how much

No Yes/No

History How, why No NoCase study How why No Yes

Each strategy can be used for all the different purposes of research; exploratory,descriptive or explanatory (Yin, 1994). An exploratory research study tries to build descriptions of complex circumstances or phenomenons that have not been previouslyexplored (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In explanatory research, the researcher tries toexplain patterns related to a studied phenomenon and demonstrate relationshipsbetween events and the meaning of these events (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). According to Dane (1990), descriptive research involves examining a phenomenon todefine it more fully or to differentiate it from other phenomena.

3.2 Chosen research strategies

The research strategies in this thesis have been chosen based on the nature of theresearch questions and the purpose of the different research studies, as outlined by Holme & Solvang (1990) and Yin (1994). In order to address the research questions, none of the performed studies required control over behavioural events and they all focused on contemporary events. Hence, the history and experiment research strategies according to Table 3.1 were not suitable, leaving the survey, archival analysis and case study strategies as possible choices. An overview of the chosen research strategies and methods used to illuminate the research questions in this thesis is presented in Table3.2.

31

Table 3.2 Strategies and methods used to illuminate the research questions in this thesis.Research question Form of

researchquestion

Purpose of research

Researchstrategy

Study Datacollectionmethod

1. What are the problematicelements when identifying andassessing environmental aspectsin an EMS context?

What ExploratoryDescriptive

Case study Firstmultiple-casestudy

Secondmultiple-casestudy

Studies ofdocumentsQuestionnaireInterviewsQuestionnaireStudies ofdocuments

2. How can the procedures for the identifying and assessingenvironmental aspects in an EMS context be improved withregard to stringency andtransparency?

How Explanatory Case study Firstmultiple-casestudy

Studies ofdocumentsQuestionnaire

3. What are the characteristicsof the environmental policyimplementation in an EMS context?

What ExploratoryDescriptive

Case study Secondmultiple-casestudy

InterviewsQuestionnaireStudies ofdocuments

4. What do previous EMSevaluation studies report regarding environmental effectsof EMS implementation?

What Descriptive Meta-study First meta-study

Search in journaldatabasesReview ofpublications

5. What are the advantages andshortcomings of joint EMS andgroup certification compared to a traditional approach?

What Exploratory Case study Single-casestudy

InterviewsStudies ofdocumentationObservation

6. What influence doorganisational characteristicshave on the environmentaleffects of EMS implementation?

What Exploratory Meta-study Second meta-study

Search in journaldatabasesReview ofpublications

The first and third research questions are ‘what’ questions, which, according to Table 3.1, should preferably be addressed using archival analysis or survey. However, if the purpose of the research is exploratory, any of the strategies could be used (Yin, 1994). Procedures for identifying and assessing environmental aspects and the characteristics of environmental policy implementation have not been previously explored. Hence, astudy performed to cover these issues can be considered to be exploratory. In order toaddress the first and the third research question, the study must include a rather deep comprehensive description of the elements within the procedures for identifying andassessing environmental aspects and the environmental policy implementation.Therefore, the study can also be considered as descriptive in nature. To address the first research questions, two multiple-case studies have been performed. The second of these studies was also carried out to address the third research question. The reason for choosing the multiple-case design, rather than a single-case design, is that the evidence from multiple-case studies is often considered more compelling and the study

32

therefore more robust than a single-case study (Herriot & Firestone, 1983). Miles & Huberman (1994) claim that there is more potential for greater explanatory power and greater potential for generalisation in a multiple-case study than in a single-case study. An alternative to the case study approach would have been to conduct a questionnaire-based study. By using such an approach, it would have been possible to collect data from a greater number of organisations. However, previous literature studies, performed by the author of this thesis, have indicated that there was imminent risk of avery low response rate. Since research regarding identification and assessment of environmental aspects and environmental policy implementation in an EMS contextwas lacking, there was a need to get a rather deep understanding of these processes. To get this deep understanding, it was believed that a case study was a better option than a questionnaire-based survey. Jensen (1995) claims that, for research of an exploratory or descriptive nature, a qualitative research approach is preferable. The empirical base in the two multiple-case studies is qualitative but quantitative data have been supplemented with quantitative data when possible.

The second research question is a ‘how’ question of an explanatory nature. Questions of this type are likely to favour the use of case studies, histories and experiments as preferred research strategies (Yin, 1994). To address this question, a multiple-casestudy was chosen as the research strategy. The multiple-case design was preferred for the same reasons as outlined above regarding strategies for addressing the first and third research question. The empirical base used to address the second researchquestion is qualitative.

The forth research question can be regarded as descriptive since it focuses on describing in detail what previous research has found regarding the effects of EMS implementation. The question’s nature as a descriptive ‘what’ question suggests that it should preferably be addressed by using either archival analysis or survey. A survey strategy in the form of a meta-study was chosen. A meta-study is a survey, which isbased on secondary data already published in other studies instead of primaryempirical data. The aim of a meta-study can be the re-analysis of data for the purposeof answering original research questions or answering new research questions (Glass et al., 1981). It can also be used to identify additional trends and patterns. In this meta-study, attempts were made to identify patterns and relations not sought by the original authors. A meta-study was considered a suitable strategy in this case since the numberof studies on effects of EMS is fairly great and priority was allocated to evaluating the existing evidence rather than performing another study similar to the ones already published. This meta-study can be classified as a meta-evaluation. A meta-evaluationis “any evaluation of an evaluation, evaluation system, or evaluation device”(Stufflebeam, 2000). The meta-evaluation approach should not be confused with ameta-analysis, which is a way of deriving quantitative answers from qualitative research (Glass et al., 1981). According to Widmer (2002) a meta-evaluation has a fundamentally different goal compared to a meta-analysis. It is an evaluation of one or more evaluations, the intention of which is to systematically establish the worth and merit of the evaluations.

33

Joint EMS and group certification has been covered in previous research but only on a general level. Therefore, a study performed in order to address the fifth researchquestion can be regarded as exploratory. Since the fifth research question is a ‘what’ question and of exploratory nature, any research strategy could be used. To address the question, a single-case study design was chosen. The study performed included 15different organisations, but they were all members of one environmental group wherea joint EMS project was carried out, thus classified as a single-case study. A multiple-case design would also have been an option, but it was not regarded as necessary to cover more than one joint EMS project. This was due to the fact that up to the time for this study, all joint EMS projects had been performed using the same model, the so called ‘Hackefors model’ (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2002). Most of the data collectedduring the case study were qualitative, but some data covering costs for EMSimplementation were quantitative.

The final research question is a ‘what’ question and it can also be considered to havean exploratory purpose, since there is a lack of research regarding the influence of different organisational characteristics. Due to the question’s exploratory nature, any research strategy could have been used, but since the number of studies on the effects of EMS was even greater than at the time of the first meta-study described above, a meta-study was also found to be a suitable research strategy in this case. In addition, since studies on the influence of organisational characteristics on the environmental effects of EMS are rare, a review of the existing evidence is a good point of departurefor future studies with this focus. This second meta-study is not, as the first meta-study, a meta-evaluation in the sense described by Stufflebeam (2000) and Widmar(2002), since no attempt to assess the quality of the previous studies has been made.

3.3 First multiple-case study

The data collection phase of the first multiple-case study was performed fromFebruary to July 2000. The study was performed to address Research Question 1 and 2.

3.3.1 Case selection The overall criterion for selecting the organisations to the case study was that theorganisations should have implemented an EMS according to one of the standardsBS7750, ISO 14001 or EMAS. It might be difficult to establish whether an EMS fulfils the requirements in the standards and third-party EMS certification was therefore added as a second criterion.

During the planning of a study focusing on identification and assessment of environmental aspects, the author of this thesis became aware of the plans within the company Stora Enso to evaluate its existing methods for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. Since Stora Enso is one of the frontrunners regarding EMS adoption and all their business units were both ISO 14001-certifiedand EMAS-registered, the company was considered well suited as the basis for a multiple-case study. The communication with representatives from the units was

34

facilitated by the established contact with the research manager and his desire to study the identification and assessment processes.

The unit of analysis in this study was the procedures for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.

3.3.2 Case description Stora Enso is an integrated forest products company producing magazine paper,newsprint, fine paper and packaging board. Stora Enso also conducts extensive sawmilling operations. The company is mostly active in Finland, Sweden, Continental Europe and North America. At the time of this study, some 45,000 persons wereemployed in more than 40 countries. An Environmental Committee chaired by theDeputy CEO coordinates company-wide environmental issues. The CEO and Deputy CEO make decisions on strategic and policy issues. A company support unit, Stora Enso Environment works together with regional operational support teams, supported by a team of specialists.

Most business units within Stora Enso have implemented an EMS according to ISO 14001 and/or EMAS. This means that each unit regularly monitors its environmentalaspects and evaluates the significance of these. No common guidelines within Stora Enso exist for how this work is to be performed. The procedures for monitoring and assessing environmental aspects are unit-specific.

The business units included in the case study are presented in Table 3.3. Only Swedishunits were selected in order to minimise cultural differences between the organisationsin the case study. The focus on Swedish units also eliminated any possible language difficulties that otherwise might arise. All units located in Sweden that had been ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered by February 2000 and had the possibility to participate in the study were selected. Six Swedish units were unable to participate.

Table 3.3 Business units included in the first multiple-case study.Business units Certification year

EMAS / ISO 14001Ala SawmillFalun Red Painta

Fors PapermillGruvön SawmillGrycksbo PapermillHammarby PapermillHylte Papermilla

Kopparfors SawmillKvarnsveden Papermilla

Ludvika Forest Administrationb

Mölndal Papermilla

Norrsundet PapermillNymölla PapermillSkoghall Papermill

1998/19982000/19991995/19971998/19981997/19972004/19991998/19981999/19991998/19972000/19991997/19971999/19991998/19972000/2000

a Not included in study of handbooks, procedures and reviewsb Did not reply to the questionnaire

35

3.3.3 Data collection within the case The data collection was focused on finding satisfactory features, weaknesses and potential areas of improvement in the processes for the identification and assessmentof environmental aspects. Data were gathered through studies of environmentalmanagement handbooks, procedures and environmental reviews, through the use of a questionnaire and through personal contacts. The personal contacts were more of a complement to the other sources to verify information or to obtain more details. These personal contacts were taken either directly, over the phone or via e-mail. In addition, opinions at the units on how the work with environmental aspects was experiencedwere collected via the questionnaire. Instead of using a questionnaire, interviews couldhave been chosen as the data collection method. However, previous contacts with the respondents before sending out the questionnaire indicated a genuine interest in thestudy and hence a high response rate could be expected. In this case, a questionnaire had the advantage that the respondents could answer the questions when convenientand they also had the opportunity to reflect over their answers.

Originally, 15 business units indicated that they would participate in the case study. Environmental documents were received from ten units. The questionnaire wasdistributed to the environmental managers at the units, and since two of them had responsibility for two units, the questionnaire was distributed to a total of 13 managers. Two managers did not complete the questionnaire and one of these managers did not send environmental documents either. Therefore, the number of units was reduced to 14.

The main reason for choosing the environmental manager as the questionnairerespondent was that he or she is most certainly involved in the identification andassessment of the environmental aspects. Most of the questions in the questionnaire were probably also best answered by the environmental manager, since they can be expected to know the internal environment-related procedures better than anyone else. See Section 3.9.4 for a discussion on how the choice of the environmental manager asrespondent might influence the validity of the study.

A translated version of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix I. Most of thequestions were open questions asking for a description or an opinion, which is whypre-defined alternatives would have been difficult to use. Given alternatives could also have influenced the answers and were therefore not adopted. Some questions used aLikert scale.

3.4 Second multiple-case study

The data collection phase of the second multiple-case study was performed fromNovember 1999 to May 2000. The study was performed to address Research Question1 and 3.

36

3.4.1 Case selection As for the first multiple-case study, the overall criterion for selecting the case was that the organisations should have implemented an EMS according to one of the standards BS7750, ISO 14001 or EMAS and that they had been third-party certified. A second criterion was that the organisations had to be located in the Swedish counties of Norrbotten, Västerbotten or Jönköping. The study could have been performed in any county in Sweden but these three were chosen mainly because the environmentalcertified organisations there represented a wide variety of business sectors and size categories. A large number of organisations were chosen because it was judged as important to collect data from organisations in a wide variety of business sectors. Twogeographical areas were chosen to make it possible to analyse geographical differences and thereby increase the possibility to generalise.

Two Internet-based registers containing certified organisations in Sweden were original sources when identifying third-party certified organisations in the three counties (Miljöledningsarkivet, 1999; ISO-Fakta Norden, 1999). The two selection criteria were applied to the registers, resulting in a total of 60 organisations. Of these, 14 were unable to participate, which resulted in a total number of 46 participatingorganisations.

The units of analysis in this study were the implementation of environmental policyand the procedures for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.

3.4.2 Case description The empirical base in this study originates from 17 organisations in the counties ofNorrbotten and Västerbotten in the north of Sweden and 29 organisations in the county of Jönköping, in the south. The counties of Västerbotten and Norrbotten were in this study treated as one geographical area. Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 summarise the keyfeatures of the organisations used in the study. Since most of the organisations wishedto be anonymous, they have been renamed after letters in the alphabet. All organisations are ISO 14001-certified except organisation h and t. Organisations e, f, g, n, q, x and cc were both ISO 14001-certified and EMAS-registered.

3.4.3 Data collection within the case The qualitative data was obtained mainly through interviews, a questionnaire and studies of internal procedures related to organisational structure, establishment of environmental policy, objectives, targets and improvement programmes and identification and assessment of environmental aspects. A translated version of thequestionnaire and the questions asked during interviews are appended in Appendix II. On-site observations were also used, but mainly to get an understanding of the nature of the activities and their environmental aspects. The on-site observations were alsoused for establishing a good relationship with the respondent. It is necessary for the respondent to completely trust the interviewer, since this will facilitate the release ofinternal documents for later studies. Documents were copied and received either directly at the visit or later by mail.

37

Table 3.4 Characteristics of the organisations in the counties of Norrbotten and Västerbotten at the time for thesecond multiple-case study.

Org. CodeNACE

Business sector No. ofemp.

Annualturnoverin millioneuros

a 27 Manufacture of basic metals 350 65.2b 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 32 9.0

60 Land transport/ transport via pipelinesc 14 Other mining and quarrying 50 0.1

26 Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral productsd 22 Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media 32 3.9e 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except

furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater85 --

f 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment

95 2.3

36 Manufacture of furniture/ manufacturing n.e.c.g 21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 470 134.8

24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products h 40 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply 102 343.5i 37 Recycling 90 --j 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 2200 --k 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/

manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater200 --

l 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 640 81.7m 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and

equipment58 7.7

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles

In all organisations studied, the environmental manager was the respondent. Theenvironmental manager was chosen, since he or she could be expected to have goodinsights into how the organisation dealt with environmental aspects and environmentalpolicy implementation and was usually responsible for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. How the choice of the environmental manager as respondent might influence the validity of the study is discussed in Section 3.9.4. The interviews were carried out as open interviews, but they can not be regarded as in-depth interviews, since the respondents mainly described existing facts about the implementation of environmental policy and the identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects. Standardised interview schemes were used, but the managerswere also given the opportunity to speak freely about how they experienced workingwith environmental aspects. During the interviews, a questionnaire was jointly completed by the respondent and the researcher. The questionnaire included mostlyquestions with given alternatives so that it could be determined which choices were the most common among the organisations. In addition to qualitative data, some quantitative data were also collected via the questionnaire.

38

Table 3.5 Characteristics of the organisations in the county of Jönköping at the time for the second multiple-case study.

Org. CodeNACE

Business sector No. ofemp.

Annualturnoverin millioneuros

n 21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 100 12.525 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products

o 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 250 13.1p 36 Manufacture of furniture/manufacturing n.e.c. 250 6.6q 27 Manufacture of basic metals 43 10.4r 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 170 1.5

29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. s 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 93 8.6t 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 350 96.6u 33 Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and

clocks120 --

v 27 Manufacture of basic metals 1500 238.328 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment74 Other business activities

w 25 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 400 106.7x 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 650 74.6y 60 Land transport/ transport via pipelines 175 15.8

63 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities/ activities of travel agenciesz 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 72 --aa 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 170 22.4bb 63 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities/activities of travel agencies 211 --cc 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 380 68.8dd 70 Real estate activities 40 13.7ee 51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and

motorcycles12 1.9

ff 29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 550 --28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and

motorcyclesgg 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except

furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater33 11.0

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles

hh 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater

70 19.6

ii 29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 175 15.8jj 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 230 21.4kk 51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and

motorcycles20 5.4

ll 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 65 7.0

3.5 Single-case study

The data collection phase of the single-case study was performed from October 2000 to February 2002. The study was performed to address Research Question 5.

3.5.1 Case selection In order to address Research Question 5, a single-case study was performed at an environmental group that had used the joint EMS and group certification approach.The joint EMS project that was chosen was considered suitable since the project

39

started concurrent to the planning of this study. Hence, it was possible to follow thewhole project from start to finish.

The units of analysis were the elements of EMS that are unique to the joint EMS and group certification approach, i.e. joint environmental organisation, joint system administration and documentation, extensive environmental training, jointenvironmental policy and objectives and joint internal environmental audits and third-party audits.

3.5.2 Case description In the autumn of 2000, an environmental management consultancy initiated a projectto implement and certify EMSs in SMEs on an industrial estate in northern Sweden. The project was partly financed by EU Structural Funds Objective 1 and other local financiers. After two information meetings conducted by representatives from the consultancy and the municipality, 14 firms announced their interest in participating. After the preannouncement, six of the 14 companies left the project, but another seven joined, making the total number of participating companies 15. These 15 companiesformed an environmental group with a total of 255 employees. The companiesrepresent a wide range of business areas, including manufacturing, waste management,logistics and consulting. The company data are summarised in Table 3.6.

The whole process from project start to ISO 14001-certification was carried out during the period from October 2000 to February 2002. In February 2002, all companies in the environmental group earned their ISO 14001-certificate.

3.5.3 Data collection within the caseThe empirical data from the case study was collected via interviews, study of project documentation and participation at project meetings and training sessions. Theinterviews were conducted as open interviews with representatives from five of the participating companies, two project coordinators, the project manager and twoenvironmental trainers. Different interview schemes were used for the different groups of interviewees. A translated version of the interviews themes are found in AppendixIII. Companies from different business areas and of varying sizes were represented inthe interviews. The document studied included project planning documentation,environmental training material, minutes from project meetings and application forms for external financing. Some of the documented procedures and instructions that arepart of the EMSs were also studied. Notes were taken from steering group meetings,environmental group meetings and training sessions.

A questionnaire could also have been used here. However, since previous research on joint EMS and group certification is limited, more in-depth knowledge regarding theapproach was needed. Interviews were believed to be the best way of gaining this knowledge.

40

Table 3.6 Characteristics of the members in the environmental group studied in this thesis at the time of thesingle-case study.

Company CodeNACE

Business area No. ofemp.

Ann. turnover in million euros

A 25210 Manufacture of plastic plates, sheets, tubesand profiles

11 6.3

B 45211 General construction of buildings 6 5.6C 60240 Freight transport by road 22 2,0D 51879 Wholesale of machinery for industry, trade

and navigation n.e.c.30 33.8

E 31100 Manufacture of electric motors, generatorsand transformers

8 14.9

F 36140 Manufacture of other furniture 4 2.7G 45310 Installation of electrical wiring and fittings 11 21.1H 90021 Collection and treatment of other waste 55 60.5I 22250 Ancillary activities related to printing 7 5.1J 36630 Other manufacturing n.e.c. 7 7.9K 28110 Manufacture of metal structures and parts of

structures8 8.6

L 7420229569

Construction and other engineering activitiesManufacture of various other special purposemachinery n.e.c.

14 18.1

M 6024071100

Freight transport by roadRenting of automobiles

60 74,.3

N 45310 Installation of electrical wiring and fittings 1 UnknownO 85200 Veterinary activities 11 12.1

3.6 First meta-study

The data collection phase of the first meta-study was performed from May 2002 to December 2002. The study was performed to address Research Question 4.

3.6.1 Identification of studies An exhaustive search was made during the period May-December 2002 in the Wiley, Kluwer, Science direct, Ebsco Business Source Elite, Ebsco Academic Search Elite and Ebsco Econ Lit. databases to find evaluations of the environmental effects of an EMS. The search was started by defining key words to find publications of interest. The key words environmental management system, EMS, environmental management,environmental effects, evaluation and corporate environmental management were used individually and in different combinations. Publications which only focused on the environmental effects of EMS and those which partly covered this area of research were downloaded directly from the internet or were requested from the universitylibrary. Only those evaluations based on empirical data of a qualitative or quantitative nature from numerous certified organisations were included in the meta-study. Single-case studies were excluded. Another requirement was that the evaluations had to bebased on EMSs that were either ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered. Once an interesting article was found, all relevant references in the reference list were identified and requested. These publications and their reference lists were also in turnreviewed and so on until no more relevant publications could be found. Some of the reports were, however, not possible to access. In order to obtain more information

41

regarding the methods used in the studies, the evaluation reports upon which somearticle were based were requested and reviewed.

3.6.2 Description of studiesA total of 17 evaluations focusing on the effects of EMS were found. Ten of thestudies were excluded from the meta-evaluation, mainly because they did not focus onenvironmental effects. The remaining evaluations are presented in Table 3.4. For amore comprehensive presentation, see Paper IV.

Table 3.7 Evaluations focusing on environmental effects of EMS identified in the first meta- study.Evaluation Area Time period “How do standardized environmental managements affectenvironmental performance and business?”(Ammenberg, 2001)

Sweden 1997-1999

“Environmental Management Systems – Paper tiger or a powerfultool”(Zackrisson et al., 2000)

Sweden 1998-1999

“Wirksamheit und Leistung von Umweltmanagement-systemen –Eine Untersuchung von ISO 14001-zertifierten Unternehmen in derSchweiz”(Dyllick & Hamschmidt, 2000)

Switzerland 1999

“Evaluation der Cleaner Production Programme in Österreich”(Wallner et al., 2000)

Austria 2000

“Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry”(Berkhout et al., 2001)

6 EU countries 1985-1998

“National Database on Environmental Management Systems”(NDEMS, 2001)

USA Started 1996and is an on-going project

“Voluntary Adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: Mechanism, Stagesand Effects” (Welch et al., 2002)

Japan 1999

3.7 Second meta-study

The data collection phase of the second meta-study was performed from December2004 to February 2005. The study was performed to address Research Question 6.

3.7.1 Identification of studies The data collection phase of the second meta-study was conducted the same way as in the first meta-study, with some small differences. The same databases were used, but the keywords used were environmental management system, EMS, ISO 14001, EMASand corporate environmental management. Studies focusing on the environmentaleffects of EMS were identified as well as the organisational effects connected to theenvironmental effects. Instead of just reviewing studies based on empirical data fromnumerous organisations, the second meta-study also included studies based on case studies.

42

3.7.2 Description of studiesThe search for relevant publications resulted in a total of 46 evaluation studies covering a total of 33 countries worldwide. These studies are presented in Table 3.8.For a more comprehensive presentation, see Paper VI.

Table 3.8 List of publications on the effects of EMS identified in the second meta-study.Publication Countries Effects

covered*

Ammenberg & Hjelm (2003) Sweden E, FAndrews et al. (2003) USA E, O, F Annandale et al. (2004) Australia E, OAnton et al. (2004) USA EAzzone et al. (1997) Italy O, FBabakri et al. (2004) USA EBerkhout et al. (2001) 6 European countries2 EBerthelot et al. (2003) Canada E, O, F Biondi et al. (2000) 12 European countries3 E, O, F Bring Procopé & Axelsson (2003) Sweden E, OBurström (2000) Sweden OChan & Li (2001) Hong Kong E, O, FChristensen & Holm Nielsen (1996) Denmark EChristensen & Dalby Rasmussen (1998) Denmark E, O, FDahlström et at. (2003) UK E, ODarnall et al. (2000) USA E, O, F Dasgupta et al (2000) Mexico EDyllick & Hamschmidt (2000) Switzerland E, O, F Florida & Davison (2001) USA E, OFreimann & Walther (2001) Germany E, O, F Fresner & Engelhardt (2004) Austria E, O, F Fryxell & Szeto (2002) Hong Kong E, F Hillary (1998) 8 European countries4 E, O, F Hillary (1999) 9 European countries5 E, O, F Ilomäki & Melanen (2001) Finland E, F Kwon et al. (2002) South Korea ELeal et al. (2003) Spain O, FMelnyk et al. (2003) USA E, O, F Mohammed (2000) Japan E, OMorrow & Rondinelli (2002) Germany E, O, F Norén & von Malmborg (2004) Sweden OPoksinska et al. (2003) Sweden E, O, F Robinson & Clegg (1998) UK E, F Rondinelli & Vastag (2000) USA E, OSchylander (2004) Austria, Sweden ESchylander & Martinuzzi (2004) Austria E, O, FSteger (2000) 8 countries worldwide6 E, O, F Strachan (1999) UK O, F Strachan et al. (2003) UK O, FSummers Raines (2002) 15 countries worldwide7 E, F Thedéen (1996) UK E, O, F Wallner et al. (2000) Austria E, F Welch et al. (2002) Japan E, OWells & Galbraith (1999) Mexico EZackrisson et al. (2000) Sweden E, F Zutshi & Sohal (2004) Australia, New Zealand E, O, F

* E=Environmental effects, O=Organisational effects, F=Financial effects

43

The research methodologies in these studies include single-case studies, multiple-case studies, interview-based surveys, questionnaire-based surveys, statistical analysis of database material and meta-studies. The actual number of reviewed publications is greater than 46, but some of them cover the same data sample. In this study, the publications covering the same data are treated as one study. Three publications covermore than one study. In those cases, each study is reanalysed individually. The reviewed publications are mostly scientific journal articles, but a few are research reports.

None of the identified studies has been excluded in this study due to low reliability or validity. Most of the studies have been published after a peer review process and this is judged to be sufficient for inclusion in this study. However, a few studies have beenexcluded for other reasons. The study published in Berkhout et al. (2001) and Tytecaet al. (2002) compares the environmental performance in companies that have adoptedan EMS with the performance in those that have not, but since the levels of environmental performance before EMS adoption are unknown, the results could not be used in the analysis in this study. The studies published by Biondi et al. (2000), Hillary et al. (1998), Hillary (1999), Steger (2000) and Summers Raines (2002) were excluded because it was not possible to reanalyse the data and results with respect to Research Question 6. An analysis of these studies was not possible since the organisational characteristics of the organisations included in the studies were notpresented.

3.8 Analysis

3.8.1 Case studies Analysis of qualitative data includes three separate steps: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In the case studies, no effort has been made to reduce the amount of data once they had been collected. However, thedata were reduced concurrent to when interviews were being carried out. Notes were taken with pen and paper during the interviews and only data which the author of this thesis believed relevant for the aim of the study were written down. Data were displayed mostly in the form of narrative text.

According to Yin (1994), two general strategies can be chosen when analysing data collected within a case study: theoretical propositions or the development of adescriptive framework. Furthermore, Yin (1994) suggests that one or several of fouravailable modes of analysis should be used when analysing qualitative data. These four modes are pattern matching, explanation building, time-series analysis and programme logic models. Pattern-matching, in which empirically based patterns are compared with a predicted one, was found to be the most suitable mode in all the case studies.

All data in the form of notes from interviews and direct observations were first transferred from handwritten notes to text files that were in turn transferred into the computer software Q.S.R. NUDIST, where the data were coded. Internal documents

44

were manually coded and the codes were transferred to the software. After coding, all data were structured into different arrays. Since all organisations had a certified EMS,most arrays were represented by different phases in EMS implementation according tothe specifications in ISO 14001. Analysis was performed of the data in each array in order to identify patterns as well as unusual practices which were believed to have anegative or positive effect on the environmental performance of the organisations.

Data from questions with given alternatives in the questionnaires were compiled in order to see how many organisations used a certain procedure. Simple regression analysis was used to analyse some of the quantitative data concerning the degree of employee participation in the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in relation to the size of the organisation.

3.8.2 Meta-studies The data in the meta-studies consisted of narrative text in the identified publications. Only those parts of the text that were judged as relevant to the environmental effects of EMS were used during analysis. In the first meta-study, focus was on text describingmethods used for EMS evaluation and text addressing the environmental effects. In the second meta-study, focus was on text describing the four organisation characteristics:drivers for EMS adoption, organisation size, business sector and cultural setting andtext describing environmental effects.

Pattern matching was also chosen as the preferred strategy to analyse data in the meta-studies. In the first meta-study, the total amount of data was not so comprehensive and the data did not have to be restructured before analysis. The first step of analysis was to identify the environmental effects of EMS reported in the evaluation. Secondly, the research methods and the strategies for measuring environmental performance used tofind the effects of EMSs were identified. Lastly, patterns regarding the connectionbetween the reported effects and the methods and strategies used for measuring weresought after.

The first analysis step in the second meta-study was to review all the identified studiesand classify them according to which organisational characteristics were presented in the studies and the environmental effects reported. The classification was made using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Four major organisational characteristics were presented in the studies. However, all four characteristics were not presented in all the studies. The second step of analysis was conducted in four phases, with each phase focusing on one organisational characteristic. Only those studies that contained relevant data for each phase were used. In the second step, an attempt was made to identify patternsregarding the connection between variations in each organisational characteristic and the extent and type of environmental effects of EMS. In order to structure the data and facilitate the identification of patterns, key data were transferred from the publications to post-it notes. In a last step, comparisons of patterns identified and predicted patterns found through literature studies were performed.

45

3.9 Reliability and validity

According to Yin (1994), four different tests are available when evaluating the quality of research based on empirical data in social science. These tests are construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability. How the different forms of validity and reliability are treated in this thesis is addressed in this section. Internal validity is only a concern in studies with an explanatory purpose. The purpose of the three case studies is more of an exploratory and descriptive nature, which is why internal validity is not addressed in these studies.

3.9.1 Reliability in the case studies Reliability is a test concerned with the possibility of repeating a study using the same procedure and drawing the same conclusion (Martella el al., 1999). The step taken in this thesis to increase reliability is to describe the data collection procedures in the different studies as transparently as possible. In addition, the questions asked inquestionnaires and in interviews are presented in the appendices. However, it is probably not possible to achieve full reliability, since the research process is influenced by the researcher’s beliefs regarding different paradigms of research and theoretical perspectives on research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Moreover, Bjereld et al. (1999) state that all research is conducted on the basis of a determined pre-understanding of paradigms and theoretical conceptions, regarding what is importantand relevant.

3.9.2 Validity in the case studies Construct validity deals with determining to what degree operational measuresrepresent the concepts that are being studied (Dane, 1990). In order to address construct validity, the researcher’s interpretation of what is studied must be as close as possible to what actually occurs. Construct validity is increased by the use of multiple sources of data (Yin, 1994). Data in the multiple-case studies were collected through interviews, questionnaires, internal documents in the organisations studied and on-site observations. In the single-case study, data were collected using interviews, study of project documentation and participation at project meetings and training sessions.During analysis of the data in both the multiple-case studies, a triangulation approachwas used, in which data from the different sources were compared (Denzin, 1970). This procedure made it possible to verify information collected by interviews and questionnaires. Another measure suggested by Yin (1994) to deal with construct validity is to let the respondents in the studied organisations review notes taken duringthe case study. In the second multiple-case study, agreement between the respondents and the researcher on the contents in the interview notes was constantly checked during the interviews. However, this way of conducting the interviews was not possible in the single-case study.

External validity is a test that deals with the degree to which the results and conclusions of a research study can be applied to other situations and settings than theone studied (Merriam, 1998). According to Yin (1994), critics of the case study

46

approach imply that results from case studies can not be generalised; generalisation is only possible when a sample is representative of the whole population. However, Yin(1994) argues that it is incorrect to refer to representative samples when dealing with case studies and that replication logic is more suitable. He states that “this is because survey research relies on statistical generalisation, whereas case studies rely on analytic generalisation. In analytical generalisation, the investigator is striving to generalise a particular set of results to some broader theory” (Yin, 1994). To deal with the requirement of external validity, a multiple-case study design was used in two of the three case studies performed in this thesis. The first multiple-case study included14 replications (14 business units within Stora Enso) and the second multiple-case study included 46 replications (46 different organisations in various sizes and business sectors) in two different geographical locations. A single-case study design was chosen for the third study, covering 14 different organisations within an environmental group. A multiple-case design was an option, but it was not regarded as necessary to cover more than one joint EMS project, since at the time of the study, all existing joint EMSshad been implemented using the same model, the so-called ‘Hackefors model’(Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2002).

3.9.3 Reliability and validity in the meta-studies Reviews, such as the two meta-studies in this thesis, have limitations regardingexternal validity and theoretical generalisation because the selection of the studies reviewed is beyond the control of the researcher (Yin, 1994). In addition, the researcher cannot affect the reliability and validity of studies he or she is reviewing, unless, the review is expanded beyond the material reproduced in the publications. In the two meta-studies, only data presented in the publications have been reviewed andreanalysed.

Some of the studies included in the two meta-studies have problems with their internal validity, which refer to the validity of conclusions regarding causal relations (Herzog,1996). These studies have focused on trying to establish casual relations between EMS and environmental performance, but not taken into account other factors that mightaffect the environmental performance during the time period of the study. Examples of such factors are changes in environmental legislation, new permit negotiations andlevel of production. This problem has not been found in case studies since theresearchers commonly asked respondents specifically what the effects of the EMS were. However, none of the identified studies in the two meta-studies has been excluded from the studies due to low reliability or validity. Most of the studies have been published after a peer review process and this is judged to be sufficient for inclusion in the studies. However, one study published in Berkhout et al. (2001) and Tyteca et al. (2002) has been excluded due to the use of what the author of this thesis believes is an inappropriate strategy for measuring environmental performance. In their study, the researchers compare the environmental performance in companies that have adopted an EMS with the performance in those that have not. However, since the levels of environmental performance before EMS adoption are unknown, the results were not considered useful in the second meta-study.

47

3.9.4 Environmental managers’ perceptions An important issue affecting the construct validity in all the studies in this thesis is the perception of environmental managers. The environmental manager is, with few exceptions, the source of data regardless of the type of the study. The environmentalmanager is the one answering questionnaires, the interview respondent and the contact person in case studies. He or she is probably also the person behind much of the collected data in databases. The problem with the statements these managers give is that they must be seen as subjective perceptions from the viewpoint of environmentalmanagers (Freimann & Walther, 2001). The findings might be different if moreobjective evidence were collected or if more people with different responsibilities inside their companies were used as respondents (Hamschmidt & Dyllick, 2001).Another disturbing factor is that the environmental managers are professionals incorporate public relations, who are used to painting a positive picture of what they are asked about by external parties such as journalists, researchers or students.Additionally, they have to communicate their own social role within the company as a positive one, so that they will not give any information that could harm the company or themselves as environmental experts. This might lead to bias (Freimann & Walther, 2001). However, the environmental manager is the natural choice as the respondent in studies regarding EMS, since the environmental manager is most probably the person with the greatest insight and knowledge regarding EMS in most organisations.Moreover, in order to collect the type of data as collected in this thesis, the researcher needs a respondent in the studied organisations and the problem of bias is mostprobably also present among other types of employees or managers. One step taken inthe studies in this thesis to minimise the influence of the environmental managers’ bias is to use method triangulation as described in Section 3.9.2.

48

4 Research results 4.1 Summary of Paper I

Zobel, T., Almroth C., Bresky J. & Burman, J-O. (2001). Identification and assessmentof environmental aspects in an EMS context: an approach to a new reproduciblemethod based on LCA-methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(4): 381-396.

4.1.1 BackgroundStandards for environmental management systems (EMS) contain requirements that have to be fulfilled before third-party certification can be achieved, but the methods used to meet these requirements are optional (Ammenberg, 2003). Hence, it is difficult for an organisation to fully satisfy the specified requirements and to do this in a credible way, since guidelines for how this is to be accomplished are largely lacking. The procedures for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects need tobe structured in a transparent and stringent way to be reproducible and thereby credible, to meet the demands of different stakeholders and to render internal work procedures effective (Ryding, 1995; Nordic Council of Ministers,1995).

4.1.2 AimThe aim of this paper is to describe the advantages and the shortcomings of the procedures for identifying and assessing environmental aspects used in practice andbased on those experiences to introduce an approach to a new method.

4.1.3 MethodTo obtain a better understanding of these methods of identification and assessment, a multiple-case study has been carried out. This study included 14 business units within the integrated forest product company Stora Enso. Information was gathered via studies of environmental management handbooks, environmental procedures and environmental reviews. In addition, data were also collected via questionnaires.

4.1.4 Main results Results from studies of documentation The main components of the procedures for identifying and assessing environmentalaspects are well outlined for most business units. Still, in order to attain a reproducible method of identification and assessment, a few things may have to be added or adjusted. Four major areas of possible improvement have been recognised whilst analysing environmental documents. These are: definition of ‘environmental aspect’; insufficient documentation; procedures for assessment of environmental aspects; and the exclusion of technical options and economical requirements during assessment.

The units’ definitions of ‘environmental aspect’ are occasionally unclear. Most units state both the aspects and the activities connected to them, but the aspects are in some cases synonymous with the activities that give rise to them. Stating only the aspect and

49

no activity, which sometimes occurs, is also problematic since it will make it difficult to understand why and where the aspect arises.

The source of information and data used in the aspect identification and assessmentprocedures is often not described or documented in a structured way. It will therefore not be possible to form an opinion of the quality of the data. Consequently, there is lack of transparency and stringency, which reduces the reproducibility and ultimately the credibility of the procedure. The way environmental aspects have been identified and the method of data collection also constitute important information that is not sufficiently stated. With no such knowledge, it is hard to assess the quality of the information or the identification procedures. Another example of information thatoften has not been stated is how data have been aggregated or allocated.

Assessment criteria used when assessing environmental aspects are seldom clearly defined or quantified, which might lead to inconsistency in the units’ assessment procedures. This inconsistency makes it difficult to perform comparisons of the environmental impact between departments within a unit or between different units.

Concerns other than the significance of the environmental impacts are often considered when performing the assessment of environmental aspects. Examples are technical options and financial requirements that, according to requirements in ISO 14001, should be taken into account later on when establishing environmentalobjectives. This will, however, affect neither the transparency nor the stringency, but has a direct influence on credibility.

Results from questionnaires A majority of the environmental managers felt that the person or group of people performing the identification and assessment had sufficient knowledge to do this. On the other hand, one third of the managers stated that they did not have the competence needed for this process. Most of the managers believed that if the identification of aspects were to be repeated, they, or somebody else, would come up with the sameaspects, but that the assessment might differ more as this procedure is more based on personal value judgements. One third believed that their methods for assessment werefully reproducible. The general opinion otherwise was that, if the assessment were repeated, the results would be somewhat different from the initial assessment, no matter who performed it. One fourth was satisfied with their methods and did not believe that anything could be improved. The majority, however, believed thatimprovements were possible. Some of their arguments were:

Environmental issues are not static: improvements will always be possible.The assessment routines are too person-dependent: improvements maytherefore be needed.Increased objectivity is needed. Environmental science is always in progress and the assessment criteria mayhave to be updated, but this process can never become objective.

50

Improvements can be achieved by performing a life cycle analysis (LCA) for the entire operation.It could be useful to use the same method within all units.

Approach to a new methodThe approach to a new method for the identification and assessment of environmentalaspects is based on the information from the multiple-case study and has been outlinedaccording to the LCA methodology in ISO 14040, ISO 14041 and ISO 14042 and the LCA data documentation format described in ISO 14048. The structure for environmental performance evaluation according to ISO 14031 has also been taken into account. The framework for the approach to new method is summarised in Figure 4.1. The inherent concepts will be briefly commented on below. The headings ‘Goal/purpose’, ‘Procedure’ and ‘Assessment’ lie in Figure 4.1 outside the frame for the suggested method, since these concepts already exist to some extent in the current procedures.

Unit process descriptionData documentation/metadataSummationRecipient description

Suggested method

Documentation model

Classification

Assessment

Characterisation

Definition ofscope and systemboundaries

Business dTechnical sy

escriptionstems

External systems

Inventory

Goal/purpose

Procedure

Figure 4.1 Approach to a new method for identification of environmental aspects.

The system boundaries define the scope of the subsequent inventory. A clear definition of the system boundaries will increase the transparency and can be achieved by using a business description, a technical overview and a presentation of external systems. Ashort business description provides a better understanding of the environmental aspects that could come into question. Examples of what could be included in such a description are what is produced, production capacity, central activities in the business,market and transports. An overview of the technical system studied using graphicalflowcharts of the unit might help facilitate the definition of the system boundaries.

51

When identifying the aspects in an EMS, the borders could be set at the gates of thefacility concerned. The technical overview would then be a flowchart of this facility, viewing all of its activities. When performing a gate-to-gate inventory, it is important to remember that the aspects that arise outside the facility can cause significant environmental impact. Examples of such aspects are production of chemicals, emissions from transports and extraction of raw materials. Hence, it is desirable that these external activities are included in the inventory. A measure that alleviates aninternal problem might transfer the problem to an external system. Therefore, the recommendation is to make a brief description of the related external systems and theexternal environmental aspects that may arise.

The inventory comprises a description of unit processes7, data collection and documentation, summation of data and a description of the recipients. A commonapproach in LCA methodology is to conduct the inventory for each unit process separately with a summation of the total flows (Nordic Council of Ministers, 1995). This approach is adopted here, since it probably makes data collection more tangible and transparent. The aim of the unit process description is to describe the process for which data will be collected, including name, boundaries, and technology and theenvironmental aspects related to it. Aspects originating from an activity should be listed in connection to the process description of this activity. Any flows in or out of the process that are neglected should also be stated and explained. The flows in and out of a technical system may consist of many different substances and materials. To structure information about them, they can be sorted in categories such as the categories specified by the Nordic Council of Ministers (1995); emissions to air, emissions to water, emissions to soil, residuals and wastes, nuisance, energy and fuels,resources and product. While quantifying and registering the inputs and outputs,information about data (metadata) should be documented in order to secure transparency and stringency. The amounts and units of substances should be registered, as well as the sampling procedures. To be able to assess the quality of the data, the sources and assumptions made should be stated. The precision and accuracyas well as any uncertainties known about data should also be stated. Data are often notuseful in the form in which they were originally recorded. If data are further aggregated and statistically analysed, this should also be explained. Sometimesallocations of emissions or use of resources and energy are needed between unit processes. All calculations made to allocate such entities should be fully described. Allocation requirements in ISO 14041 should be followed. The circumstances, under which data are collected, should be indicated since ISO 14001 and EMAS require that normal and abnormal operating conditions and emergency situations should be considered in the identifying process. After data have been collected for the different unit processes within the defined technical system, the amounts of equal substances from different unit processes should be added up. The total contribution to different environmental impacts from the inputs and outputs of the system can then be calculated. Since the significance of an aspect and its impact are largely dependent on

7 A unit process refers in LCA standards to the “smallest portion of a product system for which data are collectedwhen performing a life cycle assessment” (ISO, 1997). This term is used in the new method for describing thesmallest portion of processes within an organisation for which environmental aspects are identified.

52

the recipient, the recipient should also be described. A description of the recipients will therefore facilitate the assessment of environmental aspects.

Classification aims at translating emission data from the inventory to effect-orienteddata by sorting substances into impact categories. When choosing impact categories and characterisation methods, the requirements and recommendations in ISO 14042, as well as recommendations from SETAC8, should be followed as far as possible. Impact categories for the new method should be chosen from the most recentrecommendations. When Paper I was published, these were the categories stated belowin Table 4.1 as recommended by SETAC (Udo de Haes et al., 1999). These categoriesdo not cover all the environmental aspects that may arise within an organisation, whichis why others may have to be added. For instance, impacts caused by noise and odour, impacts caused by physical accidents, or non-toxic impacts related to the work environment must also be considered (Udo de Haes et al., 1999).

After classification, a characterisation should be performed to evaluate thecontributions of the inputs and outputs to the different impact categories. This phase in the method is primarily included to facilitate environmental performance evaluation. By using characterisation factors to summarise the substances contributing to the samecategory, the potential environmental impact can be calculated. This should be done by calculating the extent of the impacts in relation to a reference substance. The same calculation methods or equivalency factors should then be used from year to year orbetween the units, since reproducibility is of great concern.

Table 4.1 Impact categories recommended by SETAC (Udo de Haes et al., 1999).Impact categories Subcategories

Extraction of abiotic resources Extraction of deposits (e.g., fossil fuels andmineral ores)Extraction of funds (e.g., groundwater, salt andclay)Extraction of flow resources (e.g., solar energy,wind and surface water)

Extraction of biotic resources Land use Increase in land competition

Degradation of life-support functionsBio-diversity degradation due to land use

Climate change Stratospheric ozone depletionHuman toxicityEco-toxicityPhoto-oxidant formationAcidificationEutrophication

8 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC, 2005).

53

4.1.5 Main conclusionsShortcomings in both transparency and stringency have been observed in the procedures for identifying and assessing environmental aspects in 14 business units within Stora Enso. The transparency and stringency problems occur because ofinsufficient documentation and the consequence is an inconsistent and person-dependent result with low credibility. The general opinions within the units are that the identification and assessment are currently considered quite difficult to perform and could be improved. Suggested improvements are, for example, the use of moreobjective methods common among the units and the use of LCA throughout the entire production apparatus.

The findings from the 14 units have been used to suggest an approach to a new more reproducible model for identifying environmental aspects based on LCA methodology.Basing the method on LCA methodology fulfils the need for transparency andstringency. Implementing the method outlined in this paper initially means an increased workload. However, after an initial peak, the workload can be expected to decline.

4.2 Summary of Paper II

Zobel, T. & Burman, J-O. (2004). Factors of importance in identification andassessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in Swedish organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(1): 13-27.

4.2.1 BackgroundThe international standard ISO 14001 is a common tool when working systematicallywith environmental issues in Swedish organisations. Elements of the system in which environmental aspects are identified and significant aspects are important parts of theEMS, since these elements determine the shape and focus of the entire system (Whitelaw, 1997; Cascio et al., 1996). The significant aspects form the basis forestablishing environmental objectives, targets and programmes. In addition, they are instrumental in determining which individuals should receive additional environmental training and which procedures and instructions should be documented. The environmental aspects are also the starting point when evaluating an organisation’senvironmental performance. Little is known about how organisations have interpreted the specifications in ISO 14001 and formed their process of identifying and assessingenvironmental aspects. Better knowledge about how organisations treat the environmental aspects is a pre-condition for developing new and better methods.

4.2.2 AimThe general aim of this paper is to contribute with knowledge that can form the basis for developing better methodologies for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.

54

4.2.3 MethodA multiple-case study was chosen as the research strategy. Empirical data were collected from 46 organisations from three counties in Sweden, Västerbotten and Norrbotten in the north and Jönköping in the south. In Paper II, however, Västerbotten and Norrbotten are considered as one geographical area. Data were obtained mainlyvia interviews, questionnaires and studies of documentation. On-site observations werealso used, but mainly to find out more about the nature of the activities and their environmental aspects. In all organisations, the environmental manager was therespondent.

4.2.4 Main results How the studied organisations have dealt with identification and assessment of environmental aspects are presented below. The way in which organisations define anenvironmental aspect influences the identification and assessment and their ways of defining an environmental aspect are therefore also presented.

Definition of environmental aspectMany of the studied organisations have difficulty defining ‘environmental aspect’. The definition in ISO 14001 is sometimes used in internal documents, but discussionsregarding the definition of an environmental aspect during interviews indicate that these organisations have not understood the meaning of the definition in the standard. The most common way of defining an environmental aspect is to relate it to production activities. Others prefer to see their aspects as activities or do not even try to establish a definition. Examples also exist where organisations describe a situation or problem with possible environmental impact and these descriptions constitute their aspects. Most organisations only identify direct production-oriented aspects, but someexceptions exist. Indirect aspects such as insufficient information, lack of environmental training or out-of-date environmental instructions are more often foundin smaller or service-oriented organisations than in larger industrial companies.

Identification of environmental aspects The environmental aspects are often initially identified in an environmental review. In some cases, the aspects are only documented within the initial review document and nowhere else in the EMS. This may be a sign that the identification is seen as a one-off procedure.However, most organisations have established a separate register for the aspects and these organisations have often documented procedures for the aspect identification process. Four different occasions were identified in the studied organisations when theregister of environmental aspects was updated:

Changes or new projects inside the organisation (processes/methods, buildings and production equipment, chemicals/raw materials, products, transports) External changes affecting the organisation (laws, regulations and other demands, new findings in environment-related research, supplier’s environmental impact)

55

Internal and third-party environmental audits Fixed occasions (e.g., before management review)

Generally, the larger of the studied organisations tend to be better at documenting theirprocess for updating aspects than their smaller counterparts. Most large organisationshave special documented procedures for environmental control and the up-dating ofenvironmental aspects in new projects. Once a year is the dominating interval for updating aspects in organisations of all sizes. The update does not follow the specifications in any procedure and the method used is often some sort ofbrainstorming among the members of an environmental council. The most common sources of information or information-gathering techniques are direct measurement,external audits or reviews, regulatory environmental reporting, purchasing documents,interviews and observations.

When an organisation identifies its environmental aspects, it has to organise and structure them in some way. The two most common ways of structuring the aspects in the studied organisations are the process-oriented approach and a structure based ondifferent environmental areas. Some examples of processes in one of the organisations,in which environmental aspects are divided, are wastewater treatment, bleaching of paper, waste handling and maintenance of trucks. Some of the areas in anotherorganisation, typical for an organisation with an environmental area approach, are consumption and handling of chemicals, consumption and handling of productionmaterials, consumption of energy and use of transports.

Many of the studied organisations have difficulties in quantifying their environmental aspects. It seems as if most organisations make it a priority to identify as many aspects as possible, instead of using resources and time to quantify the ones already identified.In addition, original sources of information and information of data quality are largelylacking. This affects the transparency of the identification process.

Another area, where the studied organisations differ greatly is the aggregation of environmental aspects. For example, in some organisations, all non-hazardous wastes are aggregated and later assessed as one single environmental aspect, whereas in other organisations, all individual types of non-hazardous waste are assessed as separate aspects. Another aggregation choice an organisation has to make is whether to assess aspects directly connected to every individual function or process or to add up aspectsand assess the aspects on the organisational level. The latter is the most frequent choice among the studied organisations.

The larger of the studied organisations often establish some kind of environmentalnetwork to spread the responsibility for the aspect identification process. Commonly, the heads of each department are responsible for identifying aspects connected to their departments. In some cases, however, environmental managers do all the workthemselves. The smaller of the studied organisations commonly do not have internal environmental networks. Instead, the environmental manager does much of the work,often with informal or formal support from employees throughout the organisation. A

56

frequently used method for identifying aspects in the smaller organisations is brainstorming sessions involving the whole or parts of the executive committee.

Assessment of environmental aspects As with the identification, once a year is the dominating interval for reassessment of the aspects. Many of the environmental managers in the studied organisations state that the initial assessment was hard and confusing, but as they got better at workingwith their assessment model, the assessment became much easier.

Since every organisation can design its own assessment method, the methods differ widely. Of all the organisations studied, no two organisations used exactly the same method. However, similarities between the methods existed, and they can be classified in six categories:

1. No tool, but documented assessment criteria. 2. Tool with several assessment criteria. Each criterion is assigned a value from a

scale and the total sum is calculated. 3. Tool with several assessment criteria. Each criterion is assigned a value from a

scale, and the numbers are multiplied. 4. Tool with several assessment criteria, but with different criteria depending on

the type of environmental aspect. 5. Tool for traditional risk assessment. 6. Assessment based on LCA-data.

The most common tool for assessment is a matrix model with a number of assessmentcriteria. The assessment criteria used by the studied organisations are shown in Table4.2. Some of the environmental managers are not so convinced of the usefulness of a quantifiable assessment tool. They feel that they could probably obtain the sameresults from just using their experience, competence and the register of environmentalaspects. However, in spite of their doubtfulness about the efficiency of their assessment tools, they feel that the tool is useful as a historical description of theassessment process and the thoughts and discussions associated with that process

Some confusion regarding the assessment process was found among the studied organisations. Some organisations have a purely environment-focused assessmentprocess, but most of them also take business considerations into account, which is not in accordance with the requirements in ISO 14001.

Since most of the studied organisations consider the identification and assessment of environmental aspects as one process, they usually also use the same internal organisational network for the assessment as for the identification. However, some of the organisations tend to make the assessment more of a management issue. Topmanagement is seldom involved early in the assessment process, but the significantenvironmental aspects are often established in the executive committee. The environmental managers who work together with assessment groups rather than doing the assessment themselves feel that this is working well. Some of these environmental

57

managers state that they feel that they are not really sufficiently experienced or qualified to make the assessment on their own. None of the studied organisations worktogether with external stakeholders when they establish their significant aspects, but approximately six out of ten of the studied organisations state that they includestakeholder attitudes in their aspect assessment process.

Table 4.2 Criteria for assessment of environmental aspects used by organisations in this study. The figures inthe table indicate the percentage of organisations that use each criterion.

Assessment criteria Jönköping (%) Norrbotten/Västerbotten (%)

Quantities 96 82Extent of the environmental impact 96 59Seriousness of the environmental impact 78 88Public and neighbour attitudes 74 29Regulatory environmental permit 70 47Consequences of not fulfilling laws and regulations 65 47Technical or organisational problems 61 24Employees attitude and suggestions from employees 57 47Probability of environmental impact 52 71Cost for environmental impact change 52 41Customer attitude 52 29Permanence of impact or damage 35 53Conflicts with other activities and processes 30 12Other factors 39 59

4.2.5 Main conclusionsFive major elements where the identification and assessment process can be improvedwere identified: the definition of environmental aspects, the procedures for updatingaspects, the aggregation of aspects, the exclusion of business considerations in theassessment, employee and stakeholder participation, and the competence levels of people involved in the process.

4.3 Summary of Paper III

Zobel, T. (2005). Characterization of the environmental policy implementation in an EMS context: a multiple-case study in Sweden. Submitted for publication.

4.3.1 BackgroundCorporate environmental management is becoming less driven by regulatorycompliance and more driven by corporate strategy (Lent & Wells, 1996). To be able towork with environmental issues in a market-driven way, many companies prefer toimplement an environmental management system (EMS) according to the international standard ISO 14001. The definition of an environmental policy and the implementation of this policy within the organisation is the most central component ofan EMS, because it will determine the shape and focus of the entire system (Whitelaw, 1997; Cascio et al., 1996). The policy is implemented via objectives, targets and management programmes throughout the entire organisation. ISO 14001 does notprovide any details on how the environmental policy should be implemented. Every

58

organisation must therefore interpret the requirements in the standards individually.Little is known about this interpretation and how organisations have dealt with this policy implementation.

4.3.2 AimThe aim of this paper is to characterise the implementation of environmental policy inorganisations that have implemented an EMS.

4.3.3 MethodSince little was known about environmental policy implementation in an EMS contextand characteristics were needed from a variety of organisation types, a multiple-case research design was chosen. Data were obtained mainly via interviews and studies of documentation in 46 Swedish organisations from three counties in Sweden, Västerbotten and Norrbotten in the north and Jönköping in the south. In Paper III, however, Västerbotten and Norrbotten are, considered as one geographical area.During the interviews, a questionnaire was completed by the respondent. On-site observations were also used, but mainly to gain an understanding of the nature of the activities and their environmental aspects. The environmental manager was the respondent in all organisations.

4.3.4 Main results Establishment of environmental policy Often, the contents of environmental policies are similar, and it is often hard to see directly from the policy what kind of activities it relates to. The policy is mostly just a starting point for the system implementation and it is seldom internally communicated. The emphasis is more on the chain containing aspects, objectives, targets and improvement programmes. In all organisations, the environmental policy is a stand-alone document that is not integrated with other organisational policies. The establishment of the environmental policy does not seem to affect the content and appearance of these other policies.

Improvement orientationIt is commonly stated in environmental management literature that organisations implementing an EMS should be process-oriented rather than focused on specialisedfunctions. If this organisational form were to be used in practice, aspects, objectives, targets and improvement programmes would be related to and organised around processes. However, this is rarely the case for the organisations in this study. Environmental aspects are mostly connected to functions or aggregated for the wholeorganisation. Objectives, targets and programmes are then established based upon these aspects. The improvements programmes are therefore established with a focus on environmental aspects rather than on processes or functions.

Establishment of environmental objectives According to ISO 14001, objectives, targets and improvement programmes must be established and maintained for relevant functions and levels in the organisation (ISO,

59

1996a9). Most of the organisations in this study have structured their environmentalpolicy implementation according to these three levels. ISO 14001 also contains specifications regarding which factors should form the basis for the environmentalobjectives. These factors include: legal and other requirements, significant environmental aspects, technological options, financial, operational and businessrequirements, and the views of interested parties (ISO, 1996a). These factors dominate in the studied organisations in which objectives have been established, even if they usually consider other factors as well.

Environmental objectives are often generally stated in the studied organisations. The focus and formulation of the objectives closely follow the environmental policy. Objectives are seldom quantified and are mostly focused on the whole organisation. A person responsible for achieving the objectives is seldom appointed. In cases where responsibility has been allocated, the CEO, the site manager, or the environmental manager is the responsible party. The organisations in this study are often vague on thetime period for their objectives. The objectives are commonly reviewed at least once a year, often in the management review at the end of the year, and it is here the objectives are re-established or cancelled. The establishment of objectives usually follows the assessment of environmental aspects closely. If new significant aspects are found, new objectives are commonly also established.

The dominating environmental objective in the studied organisations is a goal focusing on reduction of emissions, waste production, energy consumption or raw materials; seeTable 4.3. Other kinds of goals such as training, replacement of chemicals or materials, control and investigation also occur, but to lesser extent than reductiongoals.

Table 4.3 Goal types on the environmental objective level in the organisations in this study.Goal type (obj. level)

Jönköping (%) Norrbotten/Västerbotten (%)

Reduction 63.8 73.0Training 10.0 6.3Replacement 7.5 7.9Control 5.0 9.5Investigation 6.3 3.2Other 7.5 0

The areas the goals focus on vary much more than the types of goals in the studied organisations. The different areas in focus for the environmental objectives areillustrated in Figure 4.2. Waste, chemicals, energy and emissions are the dominating areas.

9 This study was conducted before the revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004 in 2004. Therefore, the previousversions of these standards are referred to in the summary of Paper III.

60

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Was

te

Che

mic

als

Ene

rgy

Emis

sion

s

Tran

spor

ts

Trai

ning

and

awar

enes

s

Inpu

ts/ra

wm

ater

ial

Gen

eral

env

.im

pact

Com

mun

icat

ion

Noi

se

Oth

er

Focus areas for environmental objectives

Perc

enta

geJönköping Norrbotten/Västerbotten

Figure 4.2 Focus areas for environmental objectives in the organisations in this study.

Establishment of environmental targets Most of organisations in this study are good at showing the connection between theobjectives and the targets in their documentation. The same holds for the targets and the next level, the improvement programmes. The targets and the programme are usually stated together in the same document. The time periods for targets are inalmost all cases better defined than the periods for the objectives. Furthermore, targets are quantified to a greater degree than objectives. Even so, targets are in many cases not quantified. The normal time period for targets is one year, but periods up to five years exist. The targets are most often associated with the whole organisation, but some organisations have established targets both at the organisational level and at thedepartmental level. Some of the larger organisations have deployed all their objectives into targets at a lower organisational level. The parties who are responsible for achieving targets are usually well distributed throughout the organisation. Departmentmanagers are usually responsible for targets at the departmental level.

The target-level areas of focus correspond closely to the objective-level areas. As on the objective level, the dominating environmental target is a goal focusing on reduction. However, the percentage of the goals related to reduction of some kind islower. The percentage investigation-type goal has increased as well as some of the other types compared to the objective level.

Establishment of improvement programmesThe programmes are mostly stand-alone documents that are clearly linked to the targets. However, several organisations in this study do not have a separate programmelevel. Means to reach the targets are instead included in the target document. Others, mostly larger organisations, do not have one single document describing theirprogramme; each function or department has its own programme. In these organisations, a cross-check is missing. The expected results from means in all thedifferent programmes are not added up and verified to see if they suffice to reach the relevant targets.

61

Stakeholder participation and communicationEnvironmental objectives and targets are usually suggested by the environmentalmanager alone or by a small group of people from different departments and levels in the organisation. The objectives and targets are presented to the top management, and they establish the objectives and targets. The top management very seldom changesthe suggested objectives and targets before establishment.

All the studied organisations communicate their environmental goals to the employees. The most common way to communicate is by the use of bulletin boards. Thisinformation is commonly followed by verbal information in department meetings andorganisation-wide meetings. In most organisations, employees therefore have theopportunity to discuss the choice of goals with the informer, who is usually the department manager, or in some cases the environmental manager. None of theorganisations in this study work together with stakeholders when establishing their goals. However, some inform stakeholders afterwards. EMAS-registered organisationsuse their annual environmental report to communicate externally. ISO 14001-certifiedorganisations do not have to communicate externally, according to the specifications in ISO 14001. However, they usually do so, either providing information voluntarily,through an environmental report, a financial report, via a website, an information leaflet, personal contacts, or upon request.

4.3.5 Main conclusionsThe implementation of environmental policy in the organisations in this study isstrictly controlled by specifications in ISO 14001 or EMAS. All organisations followthe specifications, even though it, in some cases, is obvious that they do not need all the policy implementation levels specified by the standards. Some organisations,especially smaller ones, therefore have a more complex process than they really need. Few organisations have adopted the specifications to better suit local conditions. The studied organisations work mainly with reduction-type goals such as reductions of waste, reduction of emissions and reduced use of resources.

4.4 Summary of Paper IV

Schylander, E. & Zobel, T. (2003). Environmental effects of EMS – Evaluation of theevidence. Proceedings of Evaluation of Sustainability European Conference – EASY-ECO 2, Vienna, Austria, May 15-17, 2003, 354-365.

4.4.1 BackgroundMore and more organisations establish EMSs which are ISO 14001-certified. Thereby,it is important to investigate if an implementation of an EMS leads to improvements inenvironmental performance. Indeed, the effects of EMSs have been widely evaluated since the late 1990s. As the number of studies on the effects of EMS has increased, some researchers have found the need to perform meta-studies, which cover theempirical studies. However, none of these meta-studies focuses solely on environmental effects of EMSs.

62

4.4.2 AimThis paper aims at evaluating the evidence regarding environmental effects in previousstudies focusing on evaluation of the EMS tool.

4.4.3 MethodIn order to achieve the aim of this paper, a meta-evaluation was chosen as the researchstrategy. An exhaustive search was made in relevant databases to find evaluationsconcerning environmental effects of an EMS. Once a relevant article was found, allrelevant references in the reference list were sought. In some cases, the evaluation report upon which the article was based was requested. A total of 17 evaluationsfocusing on the effects of EMSs were found. Ten of the studies were excluded fromthe meta-evaluation because they did not focus on environmental effects. The meta-evaluation was based on surveys covering empirical data from a large number of ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered organisations. Studies focusing on a singleorganisation were excluded. The studies included in the meta-evaluation were 1.Ammenberg (2001), 2. Zackrisson et al. (2000), 3. Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000), 4.Wallner et al. (2000), 5. Berkhout et al. (2001), 6. NDEMS (2001) and 7. Welch et al.(2002).

4.4.4 Main results An overview of the methods, strategies for measuring, and findings in the evaluation studies used in Paper IV is presented in Table 4.4. The findings are discussed in moredetail below.

Table 4.4 Methods for data collection, strategies for measuring, and findings from the different evaluations,where each number represents an evaluation according to the list above. The environmental effects in the evaluations are shown as + (positive= reduced environmental impact), o (none), – (negative=increased environmental impact) or ? (No conclusions are drawn yet). (EP=Environmentalperformance).

METHOD FOR DATA COLLECTION Questionnaire InterviewEnvironmental

Indicator Structured Unstructured Structured Unstructured

-Rate of EP change-EMS org.

1+ 2o3+4+

2+

4+-Actual EP -EMS org. compared tonon-EMS org.

5o 7+

STR

AT

EG

IES

FOR

ME

ASU

RIN

G

- Rate of EP change-EMS org. compared tonon-EMS org.

6? 6? 6? 6?

Environmental effects of EMS Four of the seven evaluations state that EMS implementation lead to positive environmental effects. In one of these, Ammenberg (2001) calculated a ‘total environmental score’ before and after EMS implementation in 26 small companieswith data obtained from environmental reviews. By comparing the score before and

63

after EMS implementation he claimed that it was clear that the EMS had positive effect on the companies’ environmental performance. Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000) found by receiving a questionnaire from 157 ISO 14001-certified organisations that 92% of the environmental managers who answered acknowledge that the EMS implementation has led to an increase in importance of environmental topics in their organisations. A majority of organisations (60%) assign to EMSs supportive influencewith regard to the effects on environmental performance. Some 15% of the organisations perceive a decisive influence for EMSs. A further 15% of the organisations did not perceive any influence regarding EMSs. In anotherquestionnaire-based study, which was complemented with interviews, Wallner et al. (2000) found by receiving questionnaires from 130 organisations and performinginterviews with 44 of them, that EMSs had positive effect on some environmental parameters. However, EMSs showed no or even negative effects on others. In the last of the four evaluations stating positive effects, Welch et al. (2002) received a questionnaire from 364 ISO 14001-certified and 445 non-certified organisations. Theresearchers found that ISO 14001 adoption has some effect on the actual so called ‘greening behaviour’ on the organisation. The studied organisations became greener as they move from non-adopters to in-process and finally to certification.

Two evaluations could not see a correlation between EMS implementation andenvironmental performance. In Berkhout et al. (2001), a database of environmentalperformance information for 280 firms and 430 production sites was built andanalysed statistically. An evaluation shows that at a specific time, organisations with an ISO 14001-certified EMS do not appear to perform better than those without. In some cases, firms with certified EMSs performed worse. Zackrisson et al. (1999) found based on a questionnaire from 173 ISO 14001 or EMAS-registered companies,that the EMSs did not show significant positive effects on the environmental performance. However, the questionnaire study was complemented with interviews with 19 representatives from companies. The results from the interviews imply that about 50% of the environmental targets have been achieved as a consequence of theEMS. While 77% of the targets had a focus on reduction, the conclusion of the interviews was that the EMSs had a positive effect on the environment performance.

In the NDEMS (2001) study, environmental data was collected from more than 100 private and public organisations, in order to build a database covering theenvironmental performance in ISO 14001-certified organisations, non-ISO EMSs, and non-EMS environmental management practices. At the time for the meta-study inPaper IV, it was according to the authors too early to conclude anything regarding the effect of EMSs in the NDEMS (2001) study.

In order to evaluate the value of the results in the EMS evaluations, the methods for data collection and the strategies for measuring environmental performance need to be studied. Therefore, these methods and strategies are outlined below.

64

Methods for data collectionThree kinds of methods for data collection were used in the evaluations; studyingenvironmental performance indicators, questionnaire and interview. Three evaluations have used environmental indicators. One difference between these is that two havemeasured, assessed, and drawn conclusions about the different environmental aspectsseparately and one uses a total environmental score. The questionnaires were either structured (structured questions and answers, analysed quantitatively) or unstructured (open questions analysed qualitatively). Of five evaluations using questionnaires, only NDEMS (2001) uses an unstructured questionnaire. In all five evaluations, thequestionnaires were sent to the environmental manager. The questions in the questionnaires differ considerably between the evaluations. Zackrisson et al. (2000) use the environmental manager’s total impression as to what extent the EMS has reduced the environmental impact. Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000), NDEMS (2001) and Welch et al. (2002) have specific questions about the EMS effect on each environmental aspect and have also assessed them separately. The response rate ranged from 25.6% to 50.7%. The three evaluations based on interviews (Zackrisson etal., 2000; Wallner et al., 2000; NDEMS, 2001) used structured questions as a follow-up method for complementing and clarifying the results from the questionnaire. Some evaluators used more than one method in their evaluation.

Strategies for measuring environmental performanceThe reviewed evaluations have different strategies for measuring the environmentaleffects of an EMS. Three different strategies have been identified:

1. Comparing the rate of environmental performance change in EMS organisationsfrom year to year

2. Comparing the actual environmental performance in EMS organisations and theactual environmental performance in non-EMS organisations at a given time

3. Comparing the rate of environmental performance change in EMS organisationsto the rate of environmental performance change in non-EMS organisations

4.4.5 Main conclusionsThe meta-evaluation in this paper has not provided a conclusive answer regarding theenvironmental effects of EMSs. The findings from the different evaluations in our meta-evaluation are not consistent and it is therefore not possible to suggest a causallinkage between an EMS and improved environmental performance. However, since the EMSs in the reviewed evaluations had not been in place for long, it might be too early to see the full capacity of the systems.

4.5 Summary of Paper V

Zobel, T. (2005). The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of joint EMS and group certification: a Swedish case study. Submitted for publication.

65

4.5.1 BackgroundMany small and medium-sized organisations10 (SME) complain about the complexityof the ISO 14001-standard and the high costs for system implementation and third-party certification (Williams et al., 2000; Hillary, 2004; Pimenova & van der Vorst, 2004). In order to facilitate EMS implementation in SMEs, several implementation approaches, specifically designed to suit SMEs, have been developed (Dalhammar,2000). One such approach is joint EMS and group certification. In a joint EMS, certainparts of the EMS are common to the participating companies, but some systemelements are specific to each individual company. If the companies choose to go for ISO 14001 certification, they can do so at the same time by being audited by the samecertification body. Previous research has shown that the joint EMS approach is a rational and cost-effective approach for EMS implementation in SMEs (Ammenberg,1999). However, since certain elements of the EMS are shared by several organisations, one might expect the joint EMS approach to influence the effects of the individual systems compared to what the effects would have been if a traditional implementation approach had been used. EMSs implemented with the joint approach might also be seen by stakeholders as a ‘light’ version of an EMS, which will influence their credibility.

4.5.2 AimThe aim of this study is to describe the advantages and shortcomings of joint EMS andgroup ISO 14001-certification compared to the traditional approach for certification11.It should be noted that the findings are valid only for small and micro companies and not for the entire SME-sector since the companies in this study are classified as small or micro12.

4.5.3 MethodIn order to evaluate the suitability of joint EMS and group certification for small and micro-sized companies, a case study was performed at a group of 15 companies located in the same industrial district in northern Sweden. The empirical data from the case study was collected through interviews with representatives from participating companies, project coordinators, the project manager and environmental trainers. Data was also collected through study of project documentation and participation at project meetings and training sessions.

10 According to European Union’s definition, a company is considered to be a small and medium-sized enterprise(SME) if it has fewer than 250 employees and either the annual turnover is less than 40 million euros or theannual balance sheet total does not exceed 27 million euros. The company must also be an independententerprise, i.e. 25 % or more of capital or voting rights can not be owned by larger enterprises (CEC, 1996).11 A traditional approach to EMS implementation and ISO 14001 certification is in this paper defined as systemimplementation in the form of a time-limited project carried out by and for a single company with limited co-operation and/or benchmarking with other companies and with various amount of external help, e.g. consultants.12 According to EU´s definition a “medium” company employs 50 to 249 people, a “small” company employs 10to 49 people and a “micro” company employs less than 10 people (CEC, 1996). 2 out of 15 companies in thecase study analysed in this paper have more than 49 employees, but their sizes of 55 and 60 employees meantheir characteristics are similar to those of small companies.

66

4.5.4 Main results Formally, the EMSs at the companies in the environmental group are not all that different from a normal EMS. However, there are a few unique factors that are typical for joint EMS and group certification. These factors include:

Joint environmental organisation Joint system administration and documentationExtensive environmental training Joint environmental policy and objectives Joint internal environmental audits Joint third-party audits

These factors are evaluated in this paper. In addition, the cost efficiency of the approach is also evaluated.

Joint environmental organisationThe project studied had a slightly different structure compared to the original set-up described in Ammenberg et al. (1999). Instead of one single central coordinatorworking together with a support group, three coordinators supported the 15 companies.This made it possible for the coordinators to share experiences and also to function as backup for each other. By using more than one coordinator in a joint EMS project, it becomes less vulnerable. After ISO 14001 certification and the end of the project, the three coordinators were replaced by one central coordinator, who was hired from a consultancy firm. The companies showed great confidence in the coordinators, but itseemed as if the companies depended too much on their coordinator both during the EMS implementation phase and after certification.

Joint system administration and documentationThe documentation of the joint EMS at the environmental group consisted of acommon manual, company-specific manuals and company-specific compilation of records. The central coordinator prepared documentary templates in order to simplifydocument completion for most of the documents. These templates gave all the individual EMSs similar design. One might have expected this simplification to have reduced employee awareness and commitment. However, the company coordinatorsdid not experience the prepared documentary templates and the close similarities between the different systems as a problem.

Extensive environmental training During the implementation, all personal were scheduled to attend training sessions fora total of 30 hours. In addition to the scheduled 30 hours, more training was given inclose connection to the implementation of the respectively EMS in each company. This environmental training must be considered as extensive. The extensive training was considered by both the project manager and the companies as perhaps the strongest part of the joint EMS approach. However, the training offered to thecompany coordinators could be regarded as limited. They received the same training as all other employees and a little additional training in the form of exercises at

67

environmental group meetings. As the situation is now, the company coordinators are too much dependent on the competence of the central coordinator.

Joint environmental policy and objectives All companies within the environmental group used the same template for their environmental policy. The only elements that differed between the different policieswere a description of each company’s activities and the significant environmental aspects. The same procedure as for the policies was used when establishing the environmental objectives with the difference that the objectives were formulatedexactly the same for all companies. With the objectives as basis, more specific targets were developed, set and recorded by each company. The implementation of commonpolicy and objectives was carried out this way to save time. It became clear, when studying the policy implementation in the environmental group that the companies considered the more specific targets as the real goals they should work towards.

Joint internal environmental auditsThe internal auditors were selected company coordinators from the companies in the environmental group. The internal auditors received, in addition to the common environmental training, 24 hours of specific auditor training. In general, the proceduresfor internal environmental audits are no different for the joint EMS approach to those conducted as part of a traditional EMS. However, there is a positive difference in that the internal auditors come from different companies and perform audits at all companies but their own. This audit process assures auditor independence and thecompanies can benefit from non-conformances found by new eyes not accustomed to the company activities.

Joint third party audits Normally a company has to be audited by third-party auditors at least once every year, but the Swedish authority that approves certification bodies, SWEDAC, initiallyagreed to audits twice every three years being sufficient for companies that are members of an environmental group. The audit frequency has since then increased to a third-party visit once every year since SWEDAC changed their standpoint on thedefinition of group certification. If third-party auditors are forced to plan and carry out their audits for each single company within the joint EMS, they will spend a lot of time auditing the same processes and documentation over and over again and they will probably find it hard to make use of all the time spent during the audits. The problemseems to be a lack of formal guidelines for the group certification format.

Cost efficiency To obtain a picture of the cost-efficiency of the group certification approach, the certification costs for the environmental group were compared to other available studies that included certification costs associated with a traditional certification process; see Table 4.5.

68

Table 4.5 Comparison of certification costs using traditional certification and group certification.Studies Comparison of certification costs Cost factorLöfqvist et al. (2000)This study

0.27% of annual sales0,067% of annual sales

3.9

Johannson (1997)This study

€131 per employee€72 per employee

1.8

Schylander & Martinuzzi (2004)This study

€3789 for company with 28 employees€1182 for company with 30 employees

3.2

Zackrisson et al. (2000) This study

€7659 for company with 50 employees€1728 for company with 55 employees

4.4

Average cost factor: 3.3

The comparisons are made for companies of approximately the same size13. This comparison shows that a traditional certification process might be approximately three times as expensive for small and micro-sized companies. The reduced costs arepossible because of joint purchasing and splitting of costs for third-party audits, shared internal auditors, coordinated training and shared system administration and documentation. However, previous studies have shown that certification costs are notthe main costs for implementing and certifying an EMS (Biondi et al., 2000; Schylander & Martinuzzi, 2004). Considering that the companies in the environmentalgroup share most system elements and thereby save considerable amounts of time,however, the cost savings for internal activities are probably of the same magnitude as they are for third-party certification.

4.5.5 Main conclusionsThe joint EMS and group certification approach is associated with some problemsregarding mainly joint environmental organisation and joint environmental policy and objectives. However, it seems as if it is a good alternative for small and micro-sizedcompanies when implementing an EMS. Their environmental performance will probably not be better and the marketing value of the ISO 14001 certificate will probably not be higher compared to using a traditional implementation approach, but it will be much cheaper.

4.6 Summary of Paper VI

Zobel, T. (2005). The influence of organisational characteristics on the environmentalbenefits of environmental management systems. Submitted for publication.

4.6.1 BackgroundEver since EMSs started to be common after the publication ISO 14001 in 1996, there has been a need to investigate what the actual benefits of EMS implementation are. During the last few years, the benefits and possible disadvantages have beenextensively evaluated by researchers all over the world. Almost all these tend to treat organisations as one homogenous group not examining the benefits of EMS

13 In the other studies, the size of the companies and the costs of certification are expressed in different ways.Therefore, the comparison between this study and the other studies must be made using different comparisonbases.

69

implementation in relation to the differences between organisations and their business context. However, it does not seem likely that EMS can be suitable for all types of organisations. The degree of benefit from EMS is probably influenced by certain organisational characteristics (Chan & Li, 2001; Freimann & Walther, 2001).

4.6.2 AimThe aim of this paper is to evaluate if organisational characteristics have any effect on the environmental effects of EMS implementation.

4.6.3 MethodThis study is based on data and findings already published in other studies regarding the benefits of EMS. An attempt is made to identify patterns and relations not sought by the original authors. The findings presented in 46 evaluation studies covering 33 countries worldwide have been reanalysed. The reviewed publications are mostly scientific journal articles, but a few are research reports. To identify journal articles focusing on EMS evaluation, an exhaustive search was made in databases, which a previous study had shown were relevant for publications focusing on EMSs; see Paper IV. Once a relevant article was found and reviewed, the reference list was studied to identify other relevant articles or reports. These publications and their reference lists were in turn also reviewed and so on until no more relevant publications could be found. During a review of EMS evaluation studies and other relevant literature, four organisational characteristics were identified that can be assumed to affect the outcome of EMS implementation; drivers for EMS adoption, organisation size, business sector and cultural setting.

4.6.4 Main results Influence of drivers of EMS adoption on benefits of EMS Previous research covering drivers of ISO 9000 adoption states that pressures,competitors’ certification and advertising needs are the dominating reasons behind ISO 9000 certification (Gotzamani & Tsiotras, 2002). Such a dominance of external business reasons is not apparent in the case of EMS and ISO 14001. The reasons differwidely between organisations and most of the reviewed studies suggest that an EMS is implemented for a variety of reasons, including both business and environment-relatedreasons. However, in some studies, drivers such as improving the organisation’simage, customer pressure, new market possibilities and cost savings tend to dominate.

Previous research suggests that organisations which adopt EMS for these reasons will not experience the same degree of benefit from EMS as in organisations whereenvironmental drivers dominate (Wallace-Jones, 1998; Ilomäki & Melanen, 2001). However, most studies covering organisations whose drivers of EMS implementationare more business-related reviewed in Paper VI have not found such a connection. Onesuch study covering Swedish organisations is presented by Zackrisson et al. (2000).They found that the most significant environmental improvements were better waste recycling, less waste, safer handling of chemicals, lower energy consumption and reduced emissions. Almost four out of five goals focused on reduction, indicating that

70

the effect on environmental performance is positive. In another Swedish study, Poksinska et al. (2003) were surprised to find that environmental improvements wereonly the sixth most important motive for EMS implementation, whereas improvement in corporate image, marketing advantage and consumer pressure were rated more important. Despite the dominance of business drivers, 72 % of the companiesperceived substantial or very substantial benefits in environmental improvements.Significant benefits were achieved also in improvement of internal procedures and relations with authorities and communities.

Influence of organisation size on benefits of EMS The European Union’s (EU) classification is used in this study to analyse if the size of an organisation has any impact on the benefits of EMS. According to this classification, large organisations have more than 250 employees, medium-sizedorganisations between 50 and 249 employees and small organisations between 10 and49 employees (CEC, 1996)14. EMS implementation in small and medium-sized organisations (SME) is associated with problems due to the complexity of the standard and the lack of human and financial resources (Hillary, 2004; Pimenova & van der Vorst, 1996). These barriers and the proposed inappropriateness of the EMS tool for smaller organisations might indicate that smaller organisations experience less benefits from EMS adoption than larger ones (Gerstenfeld & Roberts, 2000; Hutchinson & Hutchinson, 1995; Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996). However, this does not seem to be the case in the studies covering SMEs. On the contrary, many SMEs seem to experience a wide variety of environmental benefits. The studies reviewed in this paper indicate that EMS generally leads to various benefits in organisations of all sizes. However, some differences have been identified between large, medium-sized and small organisations.

Most of the large companies experienced improvement in regulatory compliance orstated that the risk of non-compliance had been reduced as a result of EMSimplementation. A positive effect on compliance was also identified in medium-sized companies, but not to the same degree as in the large ones. None of the studies on small companies mentioned anything about improvements in compliance. Concrete improvements in environmental performance were found in all studies, regardless of the company size. Reduced volumes of conventional and hazardous waste seemed to be the most common environmental aspects in all size categories. Reduction in water consumption and in energy use was also fairly common in companies of all sizes. The effects of EMS on transports and products were rarely reported in all size categories. Other areas that seem to be independent of the company size were the awareness of the company’s environmental aspects and its impact. An increase of the awareness of environmental issues was one of the most common areas of improvement. In a few cases, the EMS also led to a spreading of the responsibility regarding environmental activities. This organisational development occurred in both large and medium-sized

14 In addition to specifications regarding the number of employees in large, medium-sized, small and micro-sizedorganisations, EU´s definition also includes specifications regarding annual turnover and annual balance sheettotal. The organisation must also be an independent enterprise, i.e. 25% or more of the capital or voting rightscan not be owned by larger enterprises (CEC, 1996).

71

organisations, but no report of this can be found in the studies on small companies. Other commonly reported benefits in large companies were improvements in document control and record-keeping and systematisation of environmental activities. These benefits were only found in one of the eight studies covering small and medium-sized companies.

Influence of business sector on benefits of EMS In order to analyse differences in benefits from EMS in relation to business sector, the reviewed studies have been grouped in five different sectors: printing sector, energy production, manufacturing, primary resources and municipalities/governmentfacilities. The studies were grouped this way because of the complexity of the environmental impact of the organisations studied.

It has not been possible to identify any patterns in the existing evidence regarding differences in the degree of benefits of EMS in the printing, energy production, manufacturing and primary resources sectors. A wide variety of environment-relatedbenefits are experienced in all these sectors. The small differences in benefits from EMS in the printing, energy production, manufacturing and primary resources sectors that do exist seem to be connected to the specific nature of each sector’s activities andenvironmental impact.

In addition to an analysis of the differences in benefits of EMS in the four industrial sectors, the benefits in these sectors were compared to the corresponding benefits in municipalities and government facilities. Since EMS was originally developed as a tool for industry, one might expect the benefits of EMS in municipalities and government facilities to be more limited. This expectation was not confirmed in a study of 22 government facilities in the U.S. (Andrews et al., 2003). The varied benefits described by these government facilities can be summarised in six broadcategories: increased management and employee efficiency, increased operationalefficiency, improved community relations and improved customer/supplierrelationships, reduced liability, regulatory benefits and improved environmental performance. Additional evidence of the usefulness of EMS in municipalities was found by Norén & von Malmborg (2004) in their study of two municipalities inSweden. The general experience in both municipalities was that the environmental management functioned better after the EMS had been implemented. The experiencedadvantages were a more distinct structure, better defined liability among officers, clearer information, greater awareness of environmental issues, simplercommunication and integration of environmental issues in planning and daily work.The benefits reported by Andrews et al. (2003) and Norén & von Malmborg (2004)indicate that EMS can be a functional tool not only in industry but also in municipalities and government facilities. However, it seems as if most of the improvement in environmental performance is experienced in the parts of theseorganisations that are associated with direct environmental impact such as, for example, municipally owned companies or wastewater treatment plants. Other, more organisation-oriented benefits are also found in these organisations as well as in organisations more focused on providing services.

72

Influence of cultural setting on benefits of EMS To be able to cluster countries into larger groups to facilitate the analysis of thecultural effect on benefits of EMS, scores set by Geert Hofstede for his proposed ‘four cultural dimensions’ were used (Hofstede, 1997). These dimensions are power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Applying the scores on the reviewed studies resulted in five groups where the national cultures are similar: Anglo-Saxon countries, German-speaking countries, Scandinavia, North-East Asia and Latin European countries (and Mexico).

A total of 21 studies cover benefits of EMS in Anglo-Saxon countries (USA, UK,Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Almost all of these studies agree that EMS brings both concrete environmental improvements and other improvements of a moreorganisational nature to the organisations that adopt a system. Only two of thereviewed studies showed limited effects. All Scandinavian (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) studies found some positive effect of EMS, but two out of nine studies raiseddoubts regarding the benefits of the system. As with studies in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, a majority of the studies in the German-speaking part of the world (Germany, Austria and Switzerland), suggest that EMS lead to better environmental performance as well as other organisational improvements. However,three out of eight studies raise some doubts about the efficiency of EMS regardingconcrete environmental performance. The same pattern as in the previous group wasfound in Latin-European countries (Italy and Spain) and Mexico. Three out of four studies show that EMSs help to reduce environmental impact and lead to organisational improvements, but one study suggests limited effects of EMS. The last group, North-East Asia, includes Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan. The scores these countries have been given for the cultural dimensions indicate that their national cultures differ more internally than in the other groups, but for the sake of simplicity these three countries have been grouped together. Also here, the pattern regarding benefits of EMS is the same. Four out of five studies present a variety of benefits fromEMS adoption, but one study gives a more doubtful picture.

As the results in each cultural group indicate, there is no clear difference regarding benefits of EMS in any of the cultural settings included in the analysis. The pattern is roughly the same in all settings; a clear majority of the studies shows a positive effect of EMS adoption and one or a few studies report only limited benefits.

4.6.5 Main conclusionsThe findings in Paper VI indicate that the benefits of EMS seem to be independent ofthe drivers of adoption. Not only large organisations but also smaller ones benefit from EMS. EMS implementation in smaller organisations is associated with significantbarriers, but improvement occurs because these organisations often look at environmental issues for the first time when adopting an EMS. EMS appears to be afunctional tool not only in the industrial sector, but also in those parts of service organisations having the most complex environmental impact. No significantdifferences in benefits from EMS have been found between different cultural settings.

73

74

5 Discussion and conclusions 5.1 Introduction

The aim of this thesis is to generate knowledge regarding the use of the EMS tool sothat organisations can further improve their environmental performance. In order to achieve the aim, six research questions were formulated and addressed:

RQ1. What are the problematic elements when identifying and assessing environmental aspects in an EMS context?

RQ2. How can the procedures for identifying and assessing environmental aspectsin an EMS context be improved with regard to stringency and transparency?

RQ3. What are the characteristics of the environmental policy implementation inan EMS context?

RQ4. What do previous EMS evaluation studies report regarding environmentaleffects of EMS implementation?

RQ5. What are the advantages and shortcomings of joint EMS and group certification compared to a traditional certification approach?

RQ6. What influence do organisational characteristics have on the environmentaleffects of EMS implementation?

A discussion and conclusions regarding each of these research questions are presentedin Section 5.2 through Section 5.7 in the order they are listed above. Lastly, implications for further research are presented in Section 5.8.

5.2 Problematic elements when identifying and assessingenvironmental aspects (RQ1)

Authors of EMS-related literature warn their readers that the process of identification and assessment of environmental aspects is associated with difficulties and confusion; see, for example, Cascio et al. (1996), Schoffman & Tordini (2000), Woodside et al. (1998). Findings in studied organisations in Paper I and Paper II strengthen these statements. Seven problematic elements have been identified when identifying and assessing environmental aspects. These elements, which are listed below, will be briefly commented on:

Definition of environmental aspectsProcedures for updating aspects Aggregation of aspects Exclusion of business considerations in assessment of aspects Employee and stakeholder participation Environmental competence Transparency and stringency

75

5.2.1 Definition of environmental aspects The first difficulty arises even before the identification and assessment process can begin, in the definition of an environmental aspect. The definition in ISO 14001 seems to create more confusion than really help the organisations in Paper II. The wisest thing to do is probably to follow the advice of Woodside et al. (1998) and not focus so much on finding the “right” definition, but instead choose what feels right for theorganisation. However, many of the organisations studied, especially large industrial companies, could probably benefit from expanding their definition to include indirect aspects as well. Many of the industrial companies studied seem to be stuck in an olddefinition that originated at a time when the focus was only on compliance and control. It seems as if smaller firms actually have an advantage in that they are not used to working closely with the authorities and it is easier for them to understand the wider definition of an environmental aspect within the EMS.

5.2.2 Procedures for updating aspects It seems that most of the organisations studied in Paper I and Paper II have beenrelatively thorough when identifying environmental aspects in the initial environmental review preceding the implementation of the EMS. However, the identification is often seen as too much of a one-off procedure. The fact that such a situation is common in practice is also reported by Ammenberg (2003) and Roberts &Robinson (1998). If an external consultant does the initial review, it is even more likely that the aspects will not be updated in the near future, since important experiences are lost to the organisation when the consultant leaves (Gustafsson et al., 2001). If the environmental aspects are to be continually updated, the procedure foridentifying them must be straightforward, repeatable and documented (Woodside et al., 1998).

5.2.3 Aggregation of aspects The degree of aggregation of environmental aspects in the organisations studied in Paper II depends on what definition of environmental aspect they have chosen to use and their size. How an organisation chooses to aggregate its aspects is important for making the assessment controllable and effective. It is hard to say how many aspects are suitable for an organisation for the assessment of aspects to be effective, but thetotal number of aspects must not be too great so as not to allow them be compared with each other.

5.2.4 Exclusion of business considerations in assessment of aspects A significant environmental aspect is, according to ISO 14001, “an environmentalaspect that has or can have a significant environmental impact” (ISO, 1996). This definition should be interpreted in a way that criteria, such as technological optionsand financial, operational and business requirements, and the views of interested parties, is excluded from the aspect assessment (Ammenberg et al., 2001). Confusion regarding the use of these criteria has been found among the organisations studied inPaper II. Tough market conditions, together with available internal competence, mean that it is only natural for organisations to want to include business criteria in the

76

assessment of aspects. In addition, some organisations might have been misled by their third-party auditors. Ammenberg et al. (2001) report that 38 % of the accreditedauditors interviewed approved both business-related and environment-related criteriain the aspect assessment. It might be argued that it does not matter if business criteria are considered before or after the establishment of significant environmental aspects, since they still have to be taken into account before the establishment of environmental objectives. But it is important to show stakeholders that the organisation is aware of itssignificant environmental impact. Even if the organisation is unable to establishobjectives for all aspects with a significant impact, it must document its intensions to reduce the impact associated with the aspects not included in the objectives at a later date. The awareness of significant environmental impact is a pre-condition for making the EMS credible in the eyes of stakeholders (Ammenberg, 2003).

5.2.5 Employee and stakeholder participationThe research in Paper II has illustrated that the environmental manager and topmanagement are often the only ones involved in the identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects. It might be a disadvantage to keep this process as a top management issue, mainly because it provides an opportunity for increasing the environmental awareness and competence among employees and middle managers.Employee awareness and commitment to environmental issues are often mentioned inthe literature as important factors for EMS success (Brorson & Larson, 1999; Welford, 1997; Wilson, 1998a). None of the organisations studied let any stakeholders take part in the assessment of environmental aspects. This might also be a disadvantage since stakeholders, such as representatives of neighbouring companies or parties, non-governmental organisations (NGO) or customers, might have valuable competencesand insights that could be useful in the assessment process. In cases of cooperation between companies and NGOs, both parties have often valued the alliances highly (Elkington & Fennell, 1998). However, research covering collaboration between companies and different stakeholder groups indicates that cultural differences often hinder such collaboration (Crane, 1998).

5.2.6 Environmental competence It has been indicated by many of the environmental managers in the organisationsstudied in Paper II that they need more training and experience in environmental issues to make a qualified identification and assessment of aspects and to develop the EMS.Especially regarding the assessment, many managers claim that a lack of environmental competence is problematic. Improved competence can be achieved through training and help from external consultants, but increased involvement by employees throughout the whole organisation will probably be a more effective way of increasing the competence level and enhancing the likelihood of environmentally sound decisions. More training is also a step in the right direction to reduce the dependency on consultants, which is a common problem regarding EMS (Ammenberg,2003). The latter has also been identified as a problem in quality management (Gustafsson et al., 2001). When environmental managers involve more people in theprocess, they increase and broaden the competence and experience and more people can give their views on what they feel is important. Since the assessment of

77

environmental aspects is a subjective process (Whitelaw, 1997), it is probably a good idea to involve as many people in the organisation as possible.

5.2.7 Transparency and stringencyShortcomings in both transparency and stringency, and as a result in reproducibility, have been observed in the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in Paper I. Frequently this is due to insufficient documentation. This leads to inconsistent and person-dependent results with low credibility. A lack of transparency and stringency also makes the identification and assessment more time-consuming thanthey should be. Assessment will probably, to some extent, always be subjective, but inthe organisations studied it is experienced as too person-dependent. The different elements of subjectivity, corporate and personal opinions, perspectives and prejudices,are reasons for the need for transparency in the assessment of environmental aspects (Whitelaw, 1997). It has been found in the study of business units within Stora Enso in Paper I that environmental aspects are not something new and that they had been monitored long before the EMS was implemented. The fact that some aspects are more significant than others has also been known. Therefore, there might be a risk of basing assessment on previous knowledge and assumptions.

5.3 Approach to a new method for identifying environmentalaspects (RQ2)

5.3.1 Workload when using the method In all probability, implementing the method outlined in Paper I initially means anincreased workload compared to the methods used by the business units in Paper I and the methods suggested in EMS guidebooks, for example Schoffman & Tordini (2000), Roberts & Robinson (1998) and Whitelaw (1997). However, most of the information required by the method already exists in the organisations studied. Further, the elements included in the method, for example, well-defined system boundaries, unit process descriptions and metadata, constitute information that will not have to be frequently updated, as this type of information does not change much from year to year. The quantity of released or consumed substances will have to be registered and compiled yearly. After an initial peak, the workload can hence be expected to decline. The initial work performed to structure the documentation could actually be seen as an investment, since well-documented information will facilitate data handling or be of help when tracing information or errors. In addition, making the information moreavailable in a transparent and stringent manner will facilitate credibility.

5.3.2 Implications for environmental performance evaluation For the purpose of evaluating environmental performance, use of the aggregatedresults from a characterisation has been suggested in Paper I. However, before such a characterisation is performed, the uncertainties of the selected models must beassessed in detail. It can also be argued that the use of characterisation results for evaluating environmental performance might reduce staff commitment with regard to the use of EMS within the units, since the improvements will not be obvious. A

78

reduction in the characterisation results, e.g., global warming potentials, might beexperienced as more abstract than decreases in the amounts of a released substance. If it is made clear that the characterisation results are connected to a specific environmental issue, this should not pose a problem. If a characterisation is used, environmental goals can be expressed as an intention to reduce contributions to acertain environmental problem (impact category), instead of reduction of emissions,waste volumes or resource use, which is often the case today; see Paper III. The advantage is that the interaction with the environment will be more obvious, since this way of measuring environmental performance focuses on the environmental problemitself.

The new method suggested in Paper I could be used to develop self-assessmentprogrammes such as the Environmental Self Assessment Program (ESAP) developedby Global Environment Management Initiative (GEMI, 1994). An approach of this type uses both ‘hard’ quantifiable data and ‘softer’ qualitative data to measure the environmental performance of an organisation. ESAP has been further developed by Eagan & Joeres (1998). Their version, GMAT, makes it possible to create a graphicalenvironmental profile for organisations that could be useful when comparing theenvironmental performance of different organisations or departments. Self-assessmentprogrammes, such as ESAP and GMAT, could be further developed by integrating the method for identifying and assessing environmental aspects suggested in Paper I. These classification and characterisation steps in the method will reduce the number of environmental parameters that are to be compared in such an evaluation, as compared to traditional indicators, by summarising all contributions to a specific environmentalproblem in one number, such as, for example Global Warming Potential (GWP) or Acidification Potential (AP). These numbers will thus be the indicators and can be compared from year to year. If the impact categories suggested by SETAC were used in the model, the total number of indicators would be 14. This rather small number would make it possible to create a graphical environmental profile for operations similar to the one developed by Eagan & Joeres (1998).

5.3.3 Further development of the methodThe method presented in Paper I is not complete and needs to be further developed.What will be needed is an inventory of the existing documentation procedures and information flows. This knowledge can thereafter be used as a basis when developingthe method further, primarily the data documentation and process descriptions in the inventory and the definition of scope and system boundaries. Since not all aspects can be aggregated in a characterisation, due to the lack of well-established characterisation models, it will also be necessary to investigate how such aspects should be handled. It is also important to investigate which impact categories should be used in theclassification and how the aspects should be sorted into these categories. Impactcategories are essential to facilitate the assessment. In its present form, the assessmentwill have to be improved, if possible with a stronger connection to the condition of the recipient. The assessment criteria to be used, and how to use them, should also be investigated. Another area that has only been briefly introduced in the method and thatwill have to be developed is the recipient description.

79

5.4 Characteristics of environmental policy implementation (RQ3)

5.4.1 Summary of characteristicsThe characteristics of the environmental policy implementation in the organisationsstudied in Paper III can be summarised as follows.

1. Most environmental policies are general in nature, and it is often difficult to see directly from the policy what kind of organisation the policy is related to.

2. The policy document is mostly just a starting point for EMS implementationand is seldom communicated within the organisation.

3. Environmental improvement programmes are often established with an environmental aspect focus rather than a process or a function focus.

4. Time periods for goals are often chosen ad hoc. Goals with a long time period are completely missing.

5. Many goals are not quantified. 6. Employee participation is seldom used.7. Most organisations work mainly with reduction type goals. 8. Waste, chemicals, energy and emissions are the dominating goal areas. 9. The parties who are responsible for goals are usually well distributed

throughout the organisation.

The fact that many environmental policies are general and show great similarity mightbe expected since the implementation of environmental policy in the organisationsstudied is strictly controlled by requirements in ISO 14001 and EMAS. Additionally, one might also expect the policy itself not to be in focus, since the work with objectives, targets and improvement programmes is probably more concrete to the organisations; see Section 4.5.4 and Paper V. One might expect considerable responsibility for goal achievement to be laid at the feet of the environmental manager. However, those responsible for goal achievement are well distributed throughout theorganisations studied in Paper III, which is an advantage (Giles, 2005). Anotherstrength is that most organisations seem to work mainly with reduction-type goals. EMSs have, in most of the studied organisations, only been functioning for one or two years. Therefore, one might expect the focus to be on training goals or goals of a moreinvestigative character. The focus on reduction-type goals might indicate that theorganisations have started a process of continuous environmental improvement.However, weaknesses have also been found in the implementation of environmental policy in the studied organisations in Paper III. Changes are probably needed for point 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, which are commented on in the following section.

5.4.1 Opportunities for improvementThe fact that the organisations studied in Paper III often establish environmental improvements programmes with an environmental aspect focus rather than a process or a function focus might lead to difficulties. The aspect focus might work well when

80

only environmental issues are targeted, but will be problematic when the EMS is integrated with other management systems, such as, for example, quality management systems (QMS). QMSs are process-focused and for a QMS to work well together with an EMS, the environmental part of the management system must also be process-oriented.

Many of the organisations studied in Paper III experience difficulties when establishing an explicit time period for their goals on the objective level, as specified by management by objectives (MBO) (Carroll & Tosi, 1973; Rodgers & Hunter,1991). The organisations studied are significantly better in this aspect when establishing goals on the target level. They often choose time periods ad hoc for everyindividual goal, both on the objective and the target level. There is a total lack of goals with a long time horizon. In addition, the environmental policy is often so general that it does not provide any guidance for long-term improvements either. The implementation of environmental policy can probably be improved if similar rules are applied as in quality policy deployment (QPD); see Section 2.6.3. According to Eureka & Ryan (1990), the policy deployment process should include goals with long-,medium- and short-term time periods. They suggest that long-term goals should takeapproximately seven to ten years to achieve and medium-term goals should beachievable within three to five years.

In the organisations studied in Paper III, many goals are not quantified. This fact creates a problem, since it is hard to know if and when a goal is reached, if one cannot measure progress. Unfortunately, the literature gives no solutions on how to come to terms with this problem. In the literature describing best practice regarding QPD, it is often taken for granted that all goals are quantified and that this is necessary for the policy implementation process to be successful (Eureka & Ryan, 1990; Sheridan,1993; Nord & Olson, 1994; Akao, 1991). There is no reason to believe that environmental goals should be treated differently to any other type of goals.

Regarding participative decision-making, the organisations studied in Paper III don’t often follow the advice given by MBO. In the literature, employee awareness and commitment to environmental issues are mentioned as important factors for EMS success (Brorson & Larson, 1999; Welford, 1997; Wilson, 1998a). One way to achieve commitment to environmental issues might be through employee involvement in the environmental policy implementation. It would probably be preferable to involve employees in the policy implementation as early as possible when environmentalaspects are being identified and assessed. Some evidence for this connection between involvement and awareness was found by Andrews et al (2003) in a study of manufacturing companies in the U.S. They found that managers who were otherwisecritical became supportive when they were involved in identifying environmentalaspects and impacts, determining their significance and setting goals. Some of the smaller organisations studied in Paper III involved larger parts of the organisation in the identification of aspects, but later in the process, this tended to become a management issue again. In all the larger organisations studied, the whole process only involves top management and the environmental manager or environmental

81

department. Again, the theory behind QPD might be useful. In QPD, an annual policy containing both goals and the means to reach them is deployed throughout the whole organisation (Eureka & Ryan, 1990). In the organisations studied, it is usually the means that are deployed and the goals are set for the whole organisation or parts of it by top management. If middle managers and line personnel are to be more committed to and aware of the importance of the goals, they should be given the opportunity to participate in the process of establishing the goals and not just the means. The use of a so-called ‘catchball’15 process suggested by Eureka & Ryan (1990), in which goalsand actions are communicated among different organisational levels until consensus is reached, could be useful. The introduction of a ‘catchball’ process would probably result in greater consumption of time and resources. On the other hand, it mightincrease awareness and efficiency to such a degree that the effort is justified.

It is not surprising that waste, chemicals, energy and emissions are the dominating goal areas in the organisations studied in Paper III, since these areas belong to the traditional way of conducting environmental work (Klassen & Whybark, 1999). Somewhat surprising is the fact that transports are only the fifth most common area. This may be explained by the fact that it is harder for the organisations to influence theenvironmental impact from transports than it is to influence environmental aspects originating within the facility gates. Goals related to products are completely lacking, which is also surprising because many of the organisations studied in Paper III have products that can be classified as significant aspects. These findings regarding a lack of focus on products is in agreement with findings in other studies. Grüner et al. (1999) observed that there was no or only a very weak link between EMS and productdevelopment in a study of 34 companies, where an EMS had been implemented. ASwedish study on the experiences of external environmental auditors also indicated that the link between EMSs and products was rather weak (Ammenberg & Sundin,2005). In the auditors’ experience, product issues were seldom regarded as significant environmental aspects and were therefore not within the main scope of many EMSs.The lack of product focus cannot be explained by the scope for influencing this aspect. Instead, it might be a question of lack of experience and the need for more time and resources to work with product improvement than with process improvement. In addition, another Swedish study concludes that it is not, in practice, an absolute requirement for products to be included in a certified EMS (Hjelm et al., 2001). As a result, most organisations will most probably focus on what is actually required.

5.5 Results regarding environmental effects of EMS in EMS evaluations (RQ4)

The overall findings regarding environmental effects of EMSs in the seven EMSevaluations in Paper IV indicate that a majority of the evaluations point to EMS havinga positive effect on environmental performance. Two evaluations found no correlation between EMS and environmental performance, but in one of these, the results also differed within the evaluation. One evaluation it considered it too early to draw any

15 For a presentation of a ’catchball’ process, see Section 2.6.3.

82

conclusions regarding the effects of EMS. Even though the evidence in Paper IV seems to be in favour of positive effect of EMS, the limited or non-occurring effects in some of the evaluations do not allow a causal linkage between an EMS and improvedenvironmental performance to be established. Possible reasons for the ambiguousresults regarding environmental effects of EMS are discussed in the followingsections.

5.5.1 Influence of time after EMS implementation A possible explanation for the limited effects of EMS might be that some of thereviewed studies in Paper IV were performed too early after EMS implementation and that the systems had not started to have any effect on environmental performance. Such evidence was found in studies on effects of ISO 9000. Experiences with ISO 9000 have shown to be a good indicator of the experiences that can be expected with ISO 14001 (Melnyk et al., 2002). Wacker (1989) found that for firms with an ISO 9000-based system, certification had generated benefits over a longer time period. More specifically, a US General Accounting Office study found that it took an averageof two and a half years to realise significant bottom-line results attributable to TQM philosophies and methods such as ISO 9000 (Terziovski et al., 1999). The authors of one of the seven evaluations in Paper IV, Berkhout et al. (2001), were surprised by the non-occurring effects of EMSs and they suggested that it might be explained by the“lag effect”, whereby organisations with an EMS experience no immediateenvironmental performance benefits. The authors of another of the seven evaluations,NDEMS (2001), are of the opinion that the data must be collected over several years before any conclusion can be drawn about the benefits of an EMS.

5.5.2 Influence of research methodologyThree different methods were used by researchers in EMS evaluations that werestudied in Paper IV: interviews, questionnaires and studying environmental indicators.All three are associated with strengths and weaknesses that might affect the results of the studies. Some of these strengths and weaknesses are outlined in this section.

One of the strengths of the questionnaire is that a large number of organisations can becovered. However, the response rate for environmental surveys of private-sector firms is usually low (Melnyk et al., 2002). The response rates for the evaluations studied in this thesis ranged from 25.6% to 50.7%, which according to Dahmström (1996) mustbe considered as low. If the response rates are low, a non-response analysis to determine if the sample is representative for the whole population is recommended(Dahmström, 1996). None of the seven evaluations studied in this thesis included a non-response analysis, which negatively influences the validity of these studies. When interviews are used, the researchers mostly obtain the views of one person in each organisation, usually the environmental manager. The statements these managers give are subjective perceptions (Freimann & Walther, 2001). If other respondents with other responsibilities inside the organisations were used, the findings might be different (Hamschmidt & Dyllick, 2001). For a more comprehensive discussion regarding environmental managers’ perceptions and their influence on validity, seeSection 3.9.4. An advantage with the interview method is that the respondents can be

83

asked directly what the effects of the EMSs are. The use of environmental indicators has the advantage that the method is more objective than interviews and questionnaires (Ammenberg, 2003). However, data cannot be regarded as completely objective since the researcher influences the choice of what should be measured (Yin, 1994).

5.5.3 Influence of strategies for measuring environmental performance The reviewed evaluations in Paper IV used three different strategies for measuring the environmental effects of an EMS:

1. Comparing the rate of environmental performance change in EMSorganisations from year to year

2. Comparing the actual environmental performance in EMS organisationscompared to actual environmental performance in non-EMS organisations at agiven time

3. Comparing the rate of environmental performance change in EMSorganisations to the rate of environmental performance change in non-EMSorganisations

The first two of these strategies are associated with weaknesses that might affect theresults of the studies. The first strategy, to compare the rate of environmental performance change in EMS organisations from year to year, has problems with causality, since other occurrences, for example, changes in legislation, changes in production and public pressure, can also cause changes in environmental performance (Annandale et al., 2004). If these other occurrences are not taken into account, it mightbe difficult to see if changes in environmental performance are associated with the EMS. The strategy, to compare the actual environmental performance in EMS organisations compared to the actual environmental performance in non-EMSorganisation at a given time, is also associated with problems, since the performance in organisations before EMS adoption is often not known. One theory regarding the level of environmental performance in organisations where EMSs are adopted is presented by Welch et al. (2002) in a study of Japanese companies. The researchers claim thatEMS adoption might be a symptom of high environmental performance rather than a stimulant to greater performance. This theory is confirmed by Florida & Davison (2001) in their study of manufacturing companies in the U.S. According to this study, ISO 14001-certified companies had implemented other voluntary environmental tools to a greater extent than companies without an EMS. In addition, companies with an EMS were significantly more innovative in general. However, the opposite was found by Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000) in their study of Swiss organisations. According to them, it was companies that were below average regarding environmental performancethat sought to implement an EMS. In other words, it was the companies needing it the most that adopted an EMS. If this situation is true, it is possible that some organisations without an EMS maintain a higher performance level than those who have one, since the improvement process in many cases works rather slowly.

84

5.6 Advantages and shortcomings of joint EMS and group certification (RQ5)

5.6.1 ShortcomingsIt was found in Paper V that the company coordinators completely trusted the central coordinators and the competence gap between the central coordinator and the companycoordinators was fairly great. This competence gap probably makes the companiesdepend on the competence of the central coordinator. This finding is in accordance with Ammenberg et al. (1999) stating that too much of the environmentalresponsibility is laid at the feet of the central coordinator. This consultant dependencyis a well known problem in EMS implementation (Axelsson et al., 2003). It has alsobeen reported as a problem in quality management system implementation in SMEs (Gustafsson et al., 2001). Too high a dependency on the central coordinator makes the joint EMS vulnerable. If this coordinator is hired from a consultancy firm, the vulnerability is further increased. A person from inside the group would probably have been preferable since he or she no doubt better understand the conditions under which the companies worked.

Using the same templates for environmental policies and objectives as the companiesin Paper V do, might cause some problems. Other studies emphasise the importance of engaging employees in the work with the system and especially the policy implementation process as a way of ensure commitment (Darnall et al., 2000;Gustafsson et al., 2001). Therefore, one might have expected the fast-tracked process to have lead to lack of understanding of and commitment to these important elements of the systems. It is the nature of the joint EMS approach to simplify the system implementation to save time, but the policy implementation is not a process where oneshould take short cuts. All companies, and especially small ones, should generally be careful about taking short cuts when implementing an EMS because it might appear from the outside that they have obtained their certification too easily by implementinga ‘light’ version of ISO 14001. This might lead to a lack of trust in that company andits activities as well as in the standard.

Another weakness of the joint EMS approach at the time of the study in Paper V was the relatively short amount of time spent by the third-party auditors at each company within the environmental group. Third-party audits and the non-conformities that theyfind are an important part of the system, even if the certification bodies certainly donot want to be part of the EMS. The auditors are usually good at finding room forimprovement that the companies cannot see by themselves. In addition, third-party audits help keep both managers and employees on their toes concerning environmentalissues (Wells & Galbraith, 1999; Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000; Zackrisson et al., 2000). From a performance point of view, it might therefore be a disadvantage to have longer periods between the follow-up third-party audits. However, subsequent to the study in Paper V, SWEDAC16 changed its position on joint EMSs. Now, the third-party auditors spend the same amount of time at companies that are members of an

16 SWEDAC is the Swedish authority that approves certification bodies.

85

environmental group as they do at companies that have a normal EMS. This created a new problem. If third-party auditors are forced to plan and carry out their audits individually for each single company within the joint EMS, they will spend a lot of time auditing the same processes and documentation over and over again and they will probably find it hard to make use of all the time spent during the audits. The problemseems to be a lack of formal guidelines for the group certification format.

5.6.2 AdvantagesOne might expect the simplification of the systems documentation to reduce employeeawareness and commitment. However, the company coordinators in Paper V did not experience the prepared documentary templates and the close similarities between the different systems as a problem. Hence, since the simplification of system documentation saves considerable amounts of time and effort, it can be seen as an advantage.

The extensive environmental training is considered by all parties in the joint EMS project in Paper V as maybe the strongest part of the approach. They receive support for their opinion in several publications where training is claimed to be an extremelyimportant element in the implementation process and for the success of the EMS (Tack, 1999; Wilson, 1998a; Wilson, 1998b). These studies showed that a well executed training programme facilitates the implementation of the other elements of the system.

It was found in Paper V that the internal auditors performed environmental audits at all other companies within the environmental group but their own. This is an advantagesince the auditors are automatically independent from the company they audit. Thesame independency is hard to achieve when using a traditional implementation approach. The internal environmental audit procedures could be further developed if all companies had at least one internal auditor and perhaps employees other than thecompany coordinators could be selected as auditors in order to involve more people in the environmental activities.

The joint EMS and group certification approach has, for the companies in Paper V, lead to significant cost savings compared to a traditional approach. The reduced costs are possible because of joint purchasing and splitting of costs for third-party audits, shared internal auditors, coordinated training and shared system administration anddocumentation. It was shown that the certifications cost for traditional certification in average is about three times as high as for group certification. However, these are not the main costs for implementing and certifying an EMS. Indirect certification costs far exceed direct certifications costs (Biondi et al., 2000; Schylander & Martinuzzi, 2004). Unfortunately, the indirect certification costs are not known for the joint EMS project studied in Paper V. However, considering that the companies in the environmental group share most system elements and thereby save considerable amounts of time, the cost savings for the internal activities are probably as great as they are for third-party certification. The cost saving factor of three found in Paper V can be compared to thefindings by Ammenberg et al. (1999). They report cost saving of approximately 50 %

86

for a whole joint EMS project. The expectations regarding cost savings originatingfrom the joint EMS approach seem to have contributed greatly to the decision by most of the companies in the studied environmental group. According to most of the company coordinators in the environmental group, their companies would haveimplemented and certified an EMS even if they had not joined the projects, but itwould have taken much longer time and would also have been postponed to a later date.

5.7 Influence of organisational characteristics on theenvironmental effects of EMS (RQ6)

5.7.1 Drivers of EMS adoption and effects of EMS It was found in the meta-study in Paper VI that the reasons for EMS adoption differ widely between organisations and most reviewed studies suggest that an EMS is implemented for a variety of reasons, including both business and environment-relatedreasons. This finding support the findings by Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) that EMSs are implemented for a variety of reasons and are therefore seen as a general tool serving a wide array of purposes.

However, the study in Paper VI identified a number of studies in which internalenvironmental drivers dominate as well as studies where external business drivers are claimed to be more important. In organisations where external business driversdominate, improvement in regulatory compliance, systematisation and employees’awareness were found to the same degree as in organisations more driven byenvironmental reasons. In addition, direct environmental improvements also seem tobe unaffected by the reasons for EMS implementation. These finding are in contrast to results in a recent Swedish study (Bring Procopé & Axelsson, 2003). Here, the researchers found that organisations driven by internal environmental ambitions alsoachieved a higher rate of continual improvements than those who were motivated by customer pressure or owner requirements. However, the results found in Paper VI confirm the findings by Fryxell & Szeto (2002). In their study of ISO 14001-certifiedfacilities, they were surprised to find that the motives behind environmental performance appeared not to influence the effectiveness of the EMS components andthereby the environmental performance of these facilities. In the light of their findings,they suggest that it is the rigour of the market place and competition rather than altruism or ideals that lead to somewhat more effective EMSs.

One possible explanation for the findings regarding drivers of EMS adoption in Paper VI might be that the actual EMS implementation process leads to an increase inawareness of environmental issues among both employees and managers regardless of the motives for implementation. This increase in awareness in turn leads to other improvements. Evidence for this was found by Andrews et al. (2003) in a case study where mid-level manager remained sceptical until the facility began its EMS implementation. Managers who otherwise were critical became supportive when they

87

were involved in identifying environmental aspects and impacts, determining theirsignificance and setting goals.

5.7.2 Organisation size and effects of EMSBecause of barriers such as lack of human and financial resources and the proposed inappropriateness of the EMS tool for smaller organisations, it was in Paper VI expected that smaller organisations would experience less benefits from EMS adoptionthan larger ones (Gerstenfeld & Roberts, 2000; Hutchinson & Hutchinson, 1995;palmer & van der Vorst, 1996). However, it was found in Paper VI that medium-sizedand even small and micro-sized organisations seem to benefit quite well from EMS adoption. A plausible explanation can be found in some of the reviewed studies in Paper VI. According to Berkhout et al. (2001), large companies are generally held to be under more sustained regulatory pressure than smaller ones. Therefore, large companies generally keep good tabs on environmental legislation and know what theyhave to do to be in compliance. In addition, they usually run their operations within the limits of a permit. This forces them to implement procedures to monitor and measurethe environmental aspects that can have significant environmental impact. Theseprocedures together form a basic EMS and these companies therefore have less to gain from adopting an ISO 14001-based EMS than companies without a permit. This is supported by Andrews et al. (2003), who claim that small manufacturing companieswithout a permit often look at environmental issues for the first time when theyimplement an EMS. Therefore, they find plenty of room for improvement. A statement from a small German energy company also supports this (Morrow & Rondinelli, 2000). One of the managers in this company stated that prior to EMS implementation, they did not know if the firm was violating laws or regulations because they had never taken the time to check.

The finding in Paper VI that improvement in environmental performance seems to beindependent of organisation size is not supported by Bring Procopé & Axelsson(2003), who found that companies with more than 100 employees showed a somewhathigher rate of continual improvements in total environmental performance than companies with less than 60 employees. Similar findings were made by Fryxell & Szeto (2002), who report that larger facilities have somewhat more effective EMSswith regard to environmental improvements. In contrast to these findings, a U.S. study revealed that the improvements in recycling performance due to ISO 14001 were significantly lower for larger companies than for smaller ones (Babakri et al. 2004). This conclusion was based on the fact that larger companies usually have greater resources and expertise relative to smaller ones, and are thus more likely to have a higher recycling performance before certification.

A positive outcome of management system implementation in SMEs has also been found in studies on ISO 9000. Gotzamani & Tsiotras (2002) claim that the contribution of ISO 9000 is actually higher for small and medium-sized companies than for larger ones. Their results are in accordance with the results in some previous studies (Fenghueih, 1998: McAdam & Mckeown, 1999). The importance of the size factor for the benefits of ISO 9000 adoption is further enhanced by findings showing that

88

certification motives for smaller companies tend to be more external and passive thanthose of larger ones (Lee & Palmer, 1999; Nwankwo, 2000).

5.7.3 Business sector and effects of EMS No major differences in the degree of benefits from EMS have been identified in different industrial sectors in the meta-study in Paper VI. However, differences in thetype of benefits have been found. These differences seem to be connected to the specific nature of each sector’s activities and environmental impact. This development is expected since an EMS is based on the environmental aspects with the most environmental impact. The improvements will therefore most likely occur in those areas where each organisation’s impact is the greatest.

The studies of EMSs in municipalities and government facilities reviewed in Paper VI seem to agree that EMSs lead to environmental improvements in these types oforganisations as well. Especially improvements of an organisational nature are just asfrequently reported in studies on municipalities and government facilities as they are inthose which study benefits in the industrial sector. Another finding in Paper IV is thatEMSs seem to function well in those parts of the municipalities and government facilities that have the greatest and most complex environmental impact, such as technical service administrations and municipally owned companies. The systems do not seem to function so well in those parts providing services. This might be due to thefact that the EMS tool was created to fit the needs of the industrial sector (Andrews et al., 2003). These findings are supported by Anton et al. (2004), who claim that EMS is particularly successful in companies with large toxic release intensity. Further support is found in many of the reviewed studies in Paper VI, suggesting that most of the improvements in environmental performance are experienced in areas that can be managed within the gates of a facility such as waste, emissions and resource use. Reports of positive effects regarding indirect environmental aspects such as reduction of transport emissions and environmental impacts connected to products or services are rare. These aspects are precisely those that are most important for service-providing organisations, but if the industrial sector fails to deal with them, it does not seem likely that service-providing organisations will succeed either.

5.7.4 Cultural setting and effects of EMSEnvironmental policy implementation within an EMS where the policy is broken down into objectives and targets throughout the whole organisation can be seen as management by objectives17 (MBO) with an environmental focus. MBO was first introduced in the U.S. and according to Hofstede (2001)18, this management techniquereflects the value position in the U.S. in that it presupposes the following:

The subordinate is sufficiently independent to have a meaningful dialogue with the superior (not too high a score for the cultural dimension Hofstede calls ‘power distance’)

17 See Section 2.6.2 for a description of MBO.18 See Section 2.9.4 for a description of Hofstede’s concept of cultural dimensions.

89

Both superior and subordinate are prepared to accept some ambiguity (lowscore for the cultural dimension Hofstede calls ‘uncertainty avoidance’)Both superior and subordinate see performance as an important criterion (high score for the cultural dimension Hofstede calls ‘masculinity’)

In other words, according to Hofstede (2001), MBO, and thus also EMS, functions best in a national culture that score fairly low on power distance, low on uncertaintyavoidance and high on masculinity, e.g. the U.S. The analysis of benefits of EMS inU.S. organisations in Paper VI shows that the system functions well and contributes to environmental improvements in these organisations. The same also seems to be true in other Anglo-Saxon countries. German-speaking countries score low on power distance and high on masculinity, which should be beneficial for EMS. However, these countries score high on uncertainty avoidance, which might be a disadvantage. Thesescores might explain why few of the studies in German-speaking countries report limited benefits from EMS. Few of the Scandinavian studies claimed limited effects of EMS, which might also be explained by the scores; low on power distance, low onuncertainty avoidance and low on masculinity. The first two are good conditions, but the low score on masculinity might be a disadvantage. So far, Hofstede’s framework has explained the degree of benefits from EMS fairly well. However, it is not so successful when explaining the relatively extensive benefits of EMS found in Latin-European countries, Mexico and North-East Asian countries. Most of these countries have unfavourable scores in two cultural dimensions or in some cases all three. South Korea, Italy and Spain have unfavourable scores in all three dimensions, but moststudies in these countries claim many benefits from EMS adoption.

Overall it seems that using Hofstede’s framework to evaluate the influence of cultural setting on benefits of EMS is associated with some problems. One source of error might be the transference of Hofstede’s reasoning regarding good conditions for MBO to favourable cultural setting for EMS. Environmental issues must perhaps be treated differently to other business issues. A high score on masculinity might be good formanagement tools including MBO, but in countries with low masculinity score, e.g. Scandinavian countries, conservation of the environment is seen as an important problem (Hofstede, 1997). Another source of error is the extrapolation from national culture to organisational culture. People working in an organisation are not onlyinfluenced by values they obtain from growing up in a specific country. They are also influenced by organisation-specific values (Hofstede, 1997).

5.8 Implications for research

5.8.1 Environmental performance evaluationThis thesis is not directly focused on studying ways of measuring organisationalenvironmental performance, but problems associated with environmental performance measurement have had effect on the studies focusing on the environmental effects of EMS. The research on performance evaluation with the help of environmentalperformance indicators (EPI) has been extensive. An early approach for establishingEPIs was adopted by the European Green Table (EGT, 1993). In EGT (1993), the EPI

90

establishment process is described and management and operation indicatorssuggested for different industries. The operation indicators suggested were mostlyemissions of single substances related to production rates. Research following the EGTproject recommended the use of similar indicators (Thoresen, 1999; Azzone &Manzini, 1994; Azzone et al., 1996; James, 1994; Young, 1998). In 1999, the standardISO 14031 for environmental performance evaluation (EPE) was published. ISO14031 includes guidelines for establishing indicators and suggestions for different indicators similar to the ones in the EGT handbook. The major difference here is that the standard also includes environmental condition indicators. The content in ISO 14031 is further developed in, for example, Bennet & James (1998), Jasch (1999) and Berkhout (2001). The research on EPIs has shown that choosing indicators is no trivial task, but with careful consideration, it is possible to establish indicators that are suitable for internal use within an organisation or that can be used to compare the environmental performance of organisations within the same specific business sector. However, these indicators cannot be used to compare the environmental performance in organisations in different business sectors. The studies showing the most promisingresults for such a comparison are those done by GEMI (1992) and Eagan & Joeres (1997). The type of qualitative assessment programmes they have developed can probably be further improved. So far, these tools have been used for self-assessmentbut they can also be developed into external assessment tools for use in, for example, the financial sector.

5.8.2 Further studies on organisational characteristics and effects of EMS The research presented in Paper VI is one of the first steps taken to evaluate the usefulness of EMS considering the fact that different organisations are associated with organisation-specific characteristics. A large number of studies on the benefits of EMS, which treat all organisations as one homogeneous group, have already beenperformed and additional studies with this focus are therefore probably not needed. Instead, scholars in this field of research should focus their efforts on identifying inwhich organisations EMS leads to improvements and in which organisations it doesnot. This thesis has studied the influence of drivers of EMS adoption, organisationsize, business sector and cultural setting on the environmental effects of EMS by reviewing existing studies, but more evidence regarding the impact of these four organisational characteristics, preferably from new empirical studies, is needed. Theinfluence of other factors such as time after EMS adoption, third-party certification, level of environmental activities before EMS adoption, level of regulatory control and experience with quality management system before EMS adoption, is also important to study. When this is known, research can be directed towards developing the systems inthose organisations in which EMS fails or these organisations can simply be advised to use other tools for improving their environmental performance.

5.8.3 Environmental improvement in the fields of transport and products The research on environmental effects of EMS is not unequivocal. Some studies show a limited effect on environmental performance, whereas most studies seem to find various benefits from EMS. However, EMS does not seem to be an effective tool forachieving environmental improvements in the areas of products and transport

91

(Ammenberg & Sundin, 2005; Grüner et al., 1999). The explanation for the lack of focus on transport offered in this thesis is that it is harder for organisations to influencethe environmental impact of transport than it is to influence environmental aspects originating within the facility gates. The lack of product focus is probably a questionof a lack of experience and partly due to the fact that it takes more time and resourcesto work with product improvement than with process improvement. It has also been shown that it is not, in practice, an absolute requirement for products to be included in a certified EMS (Hjelm et al., 2001). Since in many organisations it is often obviousthat transport and products are among the significant environmental aspects and shouldtherefore be included in improvements programmes, the credibility of those organisations and the EMS tool are affected if these aspects are excluded. Therefore, it is important to further study the lack of environmental activities in the transport andproduct areas. Research should also be focused on how the EMSs can be changed so that they deal more effectively with transport and products.

92

ReferencesAkao, T. (1991). Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM. Cambridge, MA, Productivity Press.

Almgren, R. & Brorson, T. (2003). Miljörevision. Stockholm, Green Business. (In Swedish)

Ammenberg, J. (2001). How do standardized environmental management systemsaffect environmental performance and business? Licentiate thesis 907, Division of Environmental Technique and Management. Linköping, Linköping University.

Ammenberg, J. 2003. Do Standardised Environmental Management Systems Lead to Reduced Environmental Impact? Dissertation 851, Division of EnvironmentalTechnology and Management. Linköping, Linköping University.

Ammenberg, J., Börjesson, B. & Hjelm, O. (1999). Joint EMS and group certification: a cost-effective route for SMEs to achieve ISO 14001. Greener ManagementInternational, 28(Winter 1999): 23-31.

Ammenberg, J. & Hjelm, O. (2002).The connection between environmentalmanagement systems and continual environmental performance improvements.Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(2): 183-192.

Ammenberg, J. & Hjelm, O. (2003). Tracing business and environmental effects of environmental management systems - a study of networking small and medium-sizedenterprises using a joint environmental management system. Business Strategy and the environment, 12 (3): 163-174.

Ammenberg, J. & Sundin, E. (2005). Products in environmental management systems – the role of auditors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4): 417-431.

Ammenberg, J., Wik, G. & Hjelm, O. (2001). Auditing external environmental auditors – Investigating how ISO 14001 is interpreted and applied in reality. Eco-Management and Auditing, 8(4): 183-192.

Andrews, R., Amaral, D., Darnall, N., Rigling Gallagher, D., Edwards, D., Hutson, A., D’Amore, C., Sun, L., Zhang, Y., Keiner, S., Feldman, E., Fried, D., Jacoby, J., Mitchell, M. & Pflum, K. (2003). Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve Performance? National Database on Environmental Management Systems. Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Annandale, D., Morrison-Suders, A. & Bouma, G. (2004). The Impact of voluntaryenvironmental protection instruments on company environmental performance.Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(1): 1-12.

93

Anton, W.R.Q., Deltas, G. & Khanna, M. (2004). Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management, 48(1): 632-654.

Axelsson, U., Almgren, R. & Hjelm, O. (2003). Effektivare Miljöledningssystem – En Studie om Brister, Behov och Möjligheter till Förbättring. Stockholm, Naturvårdsverket. (In Swedish)

Azzone, G., Bianchi, R. & Noci, G. (1997). Implementing environmental certification in Italy: managerial and competitive implications for firms. Eco-Management and Auditing, 4(3): 98-108.

Azzone, G. & Manzini, R. (1994) Measuring strategic environmental performance.Business Strategy and the Environment, 3(1): 1-14.

Azzone, G., Noci, G., Manzini, R., Welford, R. & Young, C.W. (1996). Defining environmental performance indicators: an integrated framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(2): 69-80.

Babakri, K.A., Bennett, R.A., Rao, S. & Franchetti, M. (2004). Recycling performance of firms before and after adoption of the ISO 14001 standard. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6): 633-637.

Bell, C.L. (1997). The ISO 14001 environmental management system standard – one American’s view. In: Sheldon, C. (ed.) ISO 14001 and Beyond – EnvironmentalManagement Systema in the Real World. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing.

Bennett, M. & James, P. (1998). ISO 14031 and the future of environmentalperformance evaluation. Greener Management International, 21(Spring 1998): 71-85.

Bergman, B. & Klefsjö, B. (2003) Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. Second edition. Lund, Studentlitteratur.

Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., Azzone, G., Carlens, J., Drunen, M., Jasch, C., Noci, G., Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., van Der Woerd, F., Wagner, M., Wehrmeyer, W. & Wolf, O. (2001). Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry (MEPI). SPRU – University of Sussex.

Berthelot, S., McGraw, E., Coulmont, M. & Morrill, J. (2003). ISO 14000: Added value for Canadian business? Environmental Quality Management, 13(2): 47-57.

Berry, M. & Rondinelli, D. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental management: a new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 12(2): 38-50.

94

Biondi, V., Frey, M. & Iraldo, F. (2000). Environmental management systems and SMEs: motivations, opportunities and barriers related to EMAS and ISO 14001 implementation. Greener Management International, 29(Spring 2000): 55-70.

Bird, A. (1997). Establishing workable environmental objectives. In: Sheldon, C. (ed.) ISO 14001 and Beyond – Environmental Management Systems in the Real World.Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing.

Bjereld, U., Demker, M. & Hinnfors, J. (1999). Varför Vetenskap? Lund, Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish)

Boiral, O. & Sala, J-M. (1998). Environmental management: should industry adopt ISO 14001? Business Horizon, 41(1): 57-64.

Bring Procopé, C. & Axelsson, U. (2003). Förbättras Miljöprestandan genomMiljöledningssystem? IVL Report B1529. Stockholm, IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet. (In Swedish)

Brophy, M., Netherwood, A. & Starkey, R. (1995). The voluntary approach: an effective means of achieving sustainable development? Eco-Management and Auditing, 2(3): 127-132.

Brorson, T. & Larsson, G. (1999). Environmental Management. Stockholm, EMS.

Brown, R. (1994). Does America need ISO 9000? Machine Design, (June 6): 70-71.

Brown, A., Loughton, K. & Wiel. (1998). Smaller enterprises experience with ISO 9000. Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 15(3): 273-286.

Burström, F. (2000a). Environment & Municipalities: Toward a Theory on Municipal Environmental Management – with Focus on Capabilities, Roles, Approaches and Tools. Dissertation, TRITA-KET-IM 2000:10. Stockholm, Royal Institute of Technology.

Burström, F. (2000b). Environmental management systems and co-operation in municipalities. Local Environment, 5(3): 271-284.

Carroll, S.J. & Tosi, H.L. (1973). Management by Objectives: Application and Research. New York, Macmillan.

Cascio, J. (1996). The ISO 14000 Handbook. Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press.

Cascio, J., Woodside, G. & Mitchell, P. (1996). ISO 14000 Guide – The NewInternational Environmental Management Standards. New York, McGraw-Hill.

95

CEC. (1996). Council Recommendation of 3 April 1996 Concerning the Definition of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. OJ, L107, vol. 39, 30 May 1996: Brussels.

Chan, K-Y. & Li, X-D. (2001). A Study of the implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in Hong Kong. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 44(5): 589-601.

Christensen, P. & Dalby Rasmussen, B. (1998). Implementation of environmentalmanagement in the Danish printing house industry. Eco-Management and Auditing,5(2): 88-94.

Christensen, P. & Holm Nielsen, E. (1996). Implementing environmental managementsystems in Danish industry: Do we go beyond compliance? Eco-Management and Auditing, 3(2):56-62.

Crane, A. (1998). Culture clash and mediation: exploring the cultural dynamics of business – NGO collaboration. Greener Management International, 24(Winter 1998): 61-76.

Curkovic, S. & Pagell, M. (1999). A critical examination of the ability of ISO 9000 certification to lead to a competitive advantage. Journal of Quality Management 4(1):51-68.

Dahlström, K., Howes, C., Leinster, P. & Skea, J. (2003). Environmental managementsystems and company performance: assessing the case for extending risk-based regulation. European Environment, 13(4):187-203.

Dalhammar, C.J. (2000). Implementation and Certification of Environmental Management System in Small Enterprises: Approaches and Limitations. IIIEE Reports 2000:22. Lund, Lund University.

Dahmström, K. (1996). Från datainsamling till rapport. Lund, Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish)

Dandridge, T.C. (1979). Children are not ‘little grown ups’: Small business needs its own organizational theory. Journal of Small Business Management, April 17(2): 53-57.

Dane, F.C. (1990). Research Methods. Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Darnall, N., Rigling Gallagher, D., Andrews R.N.L. & Amaral, D. (2000). Environmental management systems: Opportunities for improved environmentalstrategy? Environmental Quality Management, 9(3): 1-9.

96

Dasgupta, S., Hettige, H. & Wheeler, D. (2000). What improves environmental compliance? Evidence from Mexican industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(1): 39-66.

de Bruijn, T. & Lulofs, K. (2000). Driving small and medium-sized enterprises towards environmental management: policy implementation in networks. In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 263-274.

del Brío, J.Á., Fernández, E., Junquera, B. & Vázquez, C.J. (2001). Motivations for adopting the ISO 14001 standard: a study of Spanish industrial companies. Environmental Quality Management, 10(4): 13-28.

Deming, W. Edwards. (1993). The New Economics for Industry. Government Education. Cambridge, MA, MIT Center for Engineering Study.

Denzin NK. Sociological methods: a sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine PublishingCompany, 1970.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative reseach. In: Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Douglas, A., Kirk, D., Brennan, C. & Ingram, A. (1999). Maximizing the benefits of ISO 9000 implementation. Total Quality Management, 10(4, 5): 507-513.

Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. New York, Harper and Brothers.

Dyllick, T. & Hamschmidt, J. (2000). Wirksamheit und Leistung von Umweltmanagementsystemen. Zürich, Hochschulverlag AG. (In German)

Eagan, P.D. & Joeres, E. (1997). Development of a facility-based environmentalperformance indicator related to sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 5(4): 269-278.

ECOTEC Research & Consulting LTD. (2000). Report on SMEs and the Environment.Final report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, February 2000, 60: pp. 44-48.

Elkington, J. & Fennell, S. (1998). Partners for sustainability. Greener Management International, 24(Winter 1998): 48-60.

Emilsson, S. & Hjelm, O. (2002). Mapping environmental management systeminitiatives in Swedish local authorities – a national survey. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(2): 107-115.

97

Entropy International. (2004). Available at: http://www.entropy-international.com.Access: July 22, 2004.

Environcert. (2004). Available at: http//www.environcert.com. Access: September 8, 2004.

Erez, M., Earley, P.C. & Hulin, C.L. (1985). The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: a two step model. Academy of Management Journal,28(1): 50-66.

Eureka, W.E. & Ryan, N.E. (1990). The process-driven business: managerial perspectives on policy management. Dearborn, MI, ASI Press.

European Green Table. (1993). Environmental Performance Indicators in Industry: A System for Corporate Environmental Performance Evaluation. Oslo, EGT.

Fay, C. (2000). Foreword. In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 9-10.

Fenghueih, H. (1998). Integrating ISO 9000 with TQM spirits: a survey. IndustrialManagement and Data System, 98(7-8): 373-379.

Florida, R. & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: environmentalmanagement systems inside and outside the factory. California Management Review,43(3): 64-84.

Freimann, J. & Walther, M. (2001). The impacts of corporate environmental management systems: a comparison of EMAS and ISO 14001. Greener ManagementInternational, 36 (Winter 2001): 91-103.

Fresner, J. & Engelhardt, G. (2004). Experiences with integrated management systemsfor two small companies in Austria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12: 623-631.

Fryxell, G.E. & Szeto, A. (2002). The Influence of motivations for seeking ISO 14001 certification: an empirical study of ISO 14001 certified facilities in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 65 (3): 223-238.

Global Environmental Management Initiative. (1992). Environmental Self-AssessmentProgram. Washington, DC, GEMI.

Gerstenfeld, A. & Roberts, H. (2000). Size matters: barriers and prospects for environmental management in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 106-118.

98

Giles, F. (2005). Integrating managers into environmental management systems.Environmental Quality Management, 14(4): 31-38.

Gilpin, A. (1996). Dictionary of Environment and Sustainable Development.Chichester, John Wiley.

Glass, G., McGaw, B. & Smith, M. (1991). Meta-analysis in Social Research. London, Sage Publications.

Gleckman, H. & Krut, R. (1997). Neither international nor standard: the limits of ISO 14001 as an instrument of global environmental management. In: Sheldon, C. (ed.) ISO 14001 and Beyond: Environmental Management Systems in the Real World.Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 45-59.

Goetsch, D.L. & Davis, S.B. (2001). ISO 14000 Environmental Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Gotzamani, K.D. & Tsiotras, G.D. The true motives behind ISO 9000 certification benefits and long term contribution towards TQM. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(2): 151-169.

Gribble, N. & Dingle, P. (1996). Environmental Management Systems: A Western Australian Perspective. Perth, Murdoch University School of Biological and Environmental Sciences.

Grüner, C., Dannheim, F. & Birkhofer, H. (1999). Integration of EMS and DFE.Current practice and future trends. Proceedings from the 6th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. Kingston (Ontario, Canada), 1999: pp. 131-140.

Gupta, M. & Piero, T. (2003). Environmental business is good business. IndustrialManagement, 45(5): 14-19.

Gustafsson, R., Klefsjö, B., Berggren, E. & Granfors-Wellemets, U. (2001). Experiences from implementing ISO 9000 in small enterprises – a study of Swedishorganisations. The TQM Magazine, 13(4): 232-246.

Hamschmidt, J. & Dyllick, T. (2001). ISO 14001 – Profitable? Yes! But is it eco-effective? Greener Management International, 34(Summer 2001): 43-53.

Herriot, R.E. & Firestone, W.A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy reseach: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Reseacher, 12(2): 14-19. Herzog, T. (1996). Research Methods and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York, HarperCollins Publisher.

Hillary, R. (1995). Small Firms and the Environment – A Groundwork Status Report.Birmingham, Groundwork.

99

Hillary, R. (1998) An Assessment of the Implementation Status of Council Regulation (No 1836/93) Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) in the European UnionMember States (AIM-EMAS). London, Imperial College.

Hillary, R. (1999). Evaluation of Study Reports on the Barriers, Opportunities and Drivers for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Adoption of EnvironmentalManagement Systems. London, Department of Trade and Industry.

Hillary, R. (2000). The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, ISO 14001 and the smaller firm. In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and theEnvironment: Business Imperatives. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 128-147.

Hillary, R. (2004). Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (6): 561-569.

Hjelm, O., Lundgren, J. & Idegren, L. (2001). Miljöledd Produktutveckling. Ett Projekt i Skärningspunkten mellan Miljöledning och Miljöanpassad Produktutveckling. Linköping University & IVF. (In Swedish)

Hoevenagel, R. & Wolters, T. (2000). Small and medium-sized enterprises, environmental policies and the supporting role of intermediate organisations in the Netherlands. Greener Management International, 30(Summer 2000): 61-69.

Hoffman, A.J. (1997). From Heresy to Dogma: An institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism. San Francisco, The New Lexington Press.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised edition. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Holme, I.M. & Solvang, B.K. (1991). Forskningsmetodik – Om Kvalitativa och Kvantitativa Metoder. Lund, Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish)

Holt, D., Anthony, S. & Viney, H. (2000). Supporting environmental improvements in small and medium-sized Enterprises in the UK. Greener Management International,30(Spring 2000): 29-49.

Honkasalo, A. (1999). Environmental management systems at the national level. Eco-Management and Auditing, 6(4):170-173.

Hunt, D. & Johnson, C. (1995). Environmental Management Systems: Principles and Practice. London, McGraw-Hill.

100

Hutchinson, A. & Hutchinson, C. (1995). Sustainable regeneration of the UK’s smalland medium-scale enterprise sector: some implications of SME response to BS7750.Greener Management International, 9(January 1995): 74-84.

Ilomäki, M. & Melanen, M. (2001). Waste minimisation in small and medium-sizedenterprises – do environmental management systems help? Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(3): 209-217.

International Organisation for Standardization. (2005). Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/otherpubs/iso14000/model.pdf. Access: August 31, 2005.

International Organisation for Standardization. (1996) ISO 14001: EnvironmentalManagement Systems - Specification with Guidance for Use. ISO.

International Organisation for Standardization. (2004). ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems - Specification with Guidance for Use. ISO.

International Organisation for Standardization (1997). ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life Cycle assessment – Principles and Framework. ISO.

ISO World. (2004). Available at: http://www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/english/analy14k.htm. Access: December 29, 2004.

ISO-Fakta Norden. (1999). Available at: http://www.isofakta.com. Access: November 30, 1999.

James, P. (1994). Business environmental performance measurement. BusinessStrategy and the Environment, 3(2): 59-66.

Jasch, C. (2000). Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(1): 79-88.

Jensen, M.K. (1995). Kvalitativa Metoder för Samhälls- och Beteendevetare. Lund, Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish)

Johannson, L. (1997). The challenge of implementing ISO 14001 for small- and medium-sized enterprises – surviving in the new global jungle. Environmental Quality Management, 7(2): 9-19.

Johnson, P. (1997). ISO 14000 – The business manager’s complete guide to environmental management. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Kanna, M. & Anton, W.R.Q. (2002). Corporate environmental management:regulatory and market-based incentives. Land Economics, 78(4): 539-558.

101

Kirkpatrick, D. & Pouliot, C. (1996). Environmental management, ISO 14000 offer multiple rewards. Pollution Engineering, 28(6): 62-65.

Klassen, R.D. & Whybank, D.C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6): 599-615.

Krut, R. & Gleckman, H. (1998). ISO 14001: A Missed Opportunity for Sustainable Global Industrial Development. London, Earthscan Publications.

Kwon, D-M., Seo, M-S. & Seo, Y.C. (2002). A study of compliance with environmental regulations of ISO 14001 certified companies in Korea. Journal of Environmental Management, 65(4): 347-353.

Latham, G.P. & Yukl, G.A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting on organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 824-845.

Leal, G.G., Fa, M.C. & Psaola, J.V. (2003). Using environmental management systemsto increase firms’ competitiveness. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(2): 101-110.

Lee, K.S. & Palmer, E. (1999). An empirical examination of ISO 9000-registrered companies in New Zealand. Total Quality Management, 10(6): 887-899.

Lent, T. & Wells, R.P. (1994). Corporate environmental management survey shows shift from compliance to strategy. In: Willig, J.T. (ed.) Environmental TQM. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of motivation and incentives. OrganizationalBehaviour and Human Performance, (May 1968): 157-189.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Löfqvist, H., Birkenheim, J., Cook, K. & Backman, M. (2000). Har Små och Medelstora Företag Konkurrensfördelar av Miljöledningssystem? IIIEE Reports 2000:13. Lund, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University. (In Swedish)

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.Martella, R., Nelson, R. & Marchand-Martella, N. (1999). Reserach Methods – Learning to Become a Critical Research Consumer. Bosten, Allyn and Bacon.

McAdam, R. & McKeown, M. (1999). Life after ISO 9000: an analysis of the impactof ISO 9000 and total quality management on small businesses in Northern Ireland. Total Quality Management, 10(2): 229-241.

102

Meima, R. (2002). Corporate Environmental Management – Managing a New Practice Area. Lund, Lund University Press.

Meisner Rosen, C. (2001). Environmental strategy and competitive advantage. California Management Review, 43(3): 8-15.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P. & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance.Journal of Operations Management, 21(3): 329-351.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R.L. & Montabon, F.L. (2002). Assessing the effectiveness of US voluntary environmental programmes: an empirical study. International Journal of Production Research, 40(8): 1853-1878.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merritt, Q.J. (1998). EM into SME won´t go? Attitudes, awareness and practices in the London Borough of Croydon. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(2): 90-100.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Miljöledarna Ciconia AB. (2004). Available at: http://www.ciconia.se. Access: July 12, 2004. (In Swedish)

Miljöledningsarkivet. (1999). Available at: http://www.miljostyrning.se/miljoledningsarkivet.asp. Access: November 30, 1999. (In Swedish)

Miljöstyrningsrådet. 2004. Available at: http://www.miljostyrning.se. Access: August 2, 2004. (In Swedish)

Mohammed, M. (2000). The ISO 14001 EMS Implementation process and its implications: a case study of central Japan. Environmental Management, 25(2): 177-188.

Morrison, J., Cushing, K.K., Day, Z. & Speir, J. (2000). Managing a Better Environment: Opportunities and Obstacles for ISO 14001 in Public Policy and Commerce. Oakland, CA, Pacific Institute for ISO 14001 in Development, Environment, and Security.

Morrow, D. & Rondinelli, D. (2002). Adopting corporate environmental management systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. EuropeanManagement Journal, 20(2): 159-171.

103

National Database of Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS). (2001). Avalible at: http://www.eli.org/isopilots.htm. Access: August 6, 2002.

Newton, T. & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34(1): 75-98.

Nordic Council of Ministers. (1995). Nordic Guidelines on Life Cycle Assessment.Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen.

Norén, H. & von Malmborg, F. (2004). Are standardized EMSs useful in local authorities? A study of how a tool from the private sector is used in the public sector. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(3): 187-197.

Nord, C. & Olson, E-K. (1994). Quality Policy Deployment: Måldialog för Överensstämmelse mellan Visioner och Dagligt Arbete. Lund, Utbildningshuset,Studentlitteratur.

North, K. (1997). Environmental Business Management – An Introduction. Geneva, International Labour Office.

Nwankwo, S. (2000). Quality assurance in small business organisations: myths and realities. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(1): 82-99.

O’Laoire, D. & Welford, R. (1996). The EMS in the SME. In: Welford, R. (ed.) Corporate Environmental Management: Systems and Strategies. London, Earthscan Publications.

Palmer, J. & van der Vorst, R.(1996). Are ‘standards’ right for SMEs?. Eco-Management and Auditing, 3(2): 91-96.

Pecher, A., Tschulik, A. & Martinuzzi, A. (2002). EMAS – An Instrument for Environmental Communication (Examining EMS-Evaluation Studies).

Pflieger, K. (1997). International voluntary standards – the potential for trade barriers. In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Environmental Management Systems and Cleaner Production.Chichester, Wiley.

Pimenova, P. & van der Vorst, R. (2004). The role of support programmes and policies in improving SMEs environmental performance in developed and transition economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6): 549-559.

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J. & Antoni, M. (2002). The state of ISO 9000 certification: a study of Swedish organizations. The TQM Magazine 14(5): 297-306).

104

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J. & Eklund, J. (2003). Implementing ISO 14000 inSweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(5): 585-606.

Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review68(2): 73-93.

Porter, M.E. & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5): 120-134.

Riglar, N. (1997). Eco-Management and audit scheme for UK local authorities. In: Sheldon, C. (ed.) ISO 14001 and Beyond: Environmental Management Systems in the Real World. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing.

Ritchie, I. & Hayes, W. (1998). A Guide to the Implementation of ISO 14000 Series on Environmental Management. Prentice Hall, NJ.

Rivera-Camino, J. (2003). What motivates European firms to adopt environmentalmanagement systems? Eco-Management and Auditing, 8(3): 134-143.

Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational Behaviour. Seventh edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Roberts, H. & Robinson, G. (1998). ISO 14001 EMS Implementation Handbook. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Robinson, D. & Clegg, A. (1985). Environmental leadership and competitive advantage through environmental management system standards. Eco-Managementand Auditing, 5(1): 6-14.

Rodgers, R. & Hunter, J.E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 322-336.

Rondinelli, D. & Vastag, G. (2000). Panacea, common sense, or just a label? – The value of ISO 14001 environmental management systems. European ManagementJournal, 18(5): 499-510.

Ryding, S-O. (1995). Miljöanpassad Produktutveckling. Stockholm, Industriförbundet.

Røvik, K.A. (2000). Moderna Organisationer: Trender inom Organisationstänkandetvid Millennieskiftet. Malmö, Liber. (In Swedish)

Sayre, D. (1996). Inside ISO 14000: The Competitive Advantage of Environmental Management. Delray Beach, FL, St. Lucie Press.

105

Schoffman, A. & Tordini, A. (2000). ISO 14001: A Practical Approach. New York,Oxford University Press.

Schylander, E. (2004). Is EMS a tool that promotes environmental sustainability? – How organizations establish and fulfil their environmental targets in order to reduceenvironmental impacts. Proceedings from Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Nottingham (United Kingdom), 28-29 June 2004: pp. 275-284.

Schylander, E. & Martinuzzi, A. (2004). ISO 14001 – experiences, effects and future challenges – a national study in Austria. In: Schylander, E. Environmental Effects and Organizational Experiences of Environmental Management Systems. Licentiate thesis 2004:31. Luleå, Luleå University of Technology.

Sheridan, B.M. (1993). Policy Deployment: The TQM Approach to Long-Range Planning. Milwaukee, WI, ASQC Quality Press.

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). (2005). Available at: http://www.setac.org. Access: 3 September, 2005.

Spencer-Cooke, A. (1997). From EMAS to SMES: Charting the course from environmental management to sustainability. In Sheldon, C. (ed.) ISO 14001 and Beyond: Environmental Management Systems in the Real World. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 243-259.

Starkey, R. (1998). Environmental Management Tools for SMEs, A Handbook.Environmental Issues Series. Luxembourg, European Environment Agency, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Steger, U. (2000). Environmental management systems: empirical evidence and further perspectives. European Management Journal, 18(1): 23-37.

Struebing, L. (1996). 9000 standards. Quality Progress, 29(1): 23-28.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). The methodology of meta-evaluations as reflected in meta-evaluations by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1): 95-125.

Strachan, P. (1999). Is the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) regulation an effective strategic marketing tool for implementing industrial organizations? Eco-Management and Auditing, 6(1): 42-51.

Strachan, P.A., McKay Sinclair, I. & Lal D. (2003). Managing ISO 14001 Implementation in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS). Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, 10(1): 50-63.

106

Summers Raines, S. (2002). Implementing ISO 14001 – An international survey assessing the benefits of certification. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(4): 418-426.

Sun, H. (2000). Total quality management, ISO0 9000 certification and performance improvement. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(2): 168-179.

Sunderland, T. (1998). Environmental management standards and certification – Dothey add value? In: Sheldon, C. (ed.) ISO 14001 and Beyond – EnvironmentalManagement Systems in the Real World. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing.

Swedish Standards Institute. (2005). Available at: http://www.sis.se. Access: 4 September, 2005. (In Swedish)

Tack, J-P. (1999). Environmental management systems and stakeholders: the case of the Belgian electricity sector. Greener Management International, 28(Winter 1999): 50-58.

Terziovski, M., Sohal, A. & Moss, S. (1999). Longitudinal analysis of quality management practices in Australian organizations. Total Quality Management, 10(6):915-926.

The Acorn Trust. (2004). Available at: http://www.theacorntrust.org. Access: August2, 2004.

Thedéen, L. (1996). Miljöledningssystem i Brittiska Företag – Bättre Miljö och Högre Lönsamhet eller Endast Merarbete? Stockholm, Sveriges Tekniska Attachéer. (In Swedish)

Thoresen, J. (1999). Environmental performance evaluation - a tool for industrial improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 7(5): 365-370.

Thuning, G. (1999). Aktivera ISO 14001 – Från Tanke till Handling. Lund, Studentlitteratur. (In Swedish)

Tibor, T. & Feldman, I. (1996). ISO 14000: A Guide to the New Environmental Management Standard. Chicago, Irwin Professional Publishing.Tilley, F. (1999). Small-firm environmental strategy: the UK experience. GreenerManagement International, 25(Spring 1999): 67-81.

Tubbs, M.E. (1986). Goal-setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, (August 1986): 474-483.

Tunnessen III, W.W. (2000). The mentoring of small and medium-sized enterprises: insights from experiences in the United States, In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Small and Medium-

107

Sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 219-232.

Tyteca, D., Carlens, J., Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., Wehrmeyer, W. & Wagner, M. (2002). Corporate environmental performance evaluation: evidence from the MEPI project. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(1): 1-13.

Udo de Haes, H.A., Jolliet, O., Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Krewitt, W. & Muller-Wenk, R. (1999). Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of LCA, 4(2): 66-74.

Wacker, J.G. (1989). An integrative theory of strategic quality management: a cost-benefit framework for evaluating quality improvement programs. InternationalJournal of Production Research, 27: 53-71.

Wallace-Jones, J. (1998). The use of voluntary approaches as environmental policy instruments. Feem Newsletter, 3: 15-17.

Wallner, H.P., Sebesta, B., Wolf, P., Spiegel, C., Leitner, T. & Schauer, K. (2000). Evaluation der Cleaner Production Programme in Österreich. Graz. (In German)

Welford, R. (1998). Corporate Environmental Management: Systems and Strategies.London, Earthscan Publications.

Wells, R.P. & Galbraith, D. (1999). Proyecto Guadalajara. Greener Management International, 28 (Winter 1999): 90-103.

Welch, E.W., Mori, Y. & Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2002). Voluntary adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: mechanism, stages and effects. Business Strategy and the Environment,11(1): 43-62.

Welsh, J.A. & White, J.F. (1981). A small business is not a little big business. HarvardBusiness Review, 59(July/August): 18-32.

Whitelaw, K. (1997). ISO 14001 Environmental System Handbook. Oxford,Butterworth-Heinemann.

Widmar, T. (2002). Evaluation Standards: Assuring Quality in Evaluation. Available at: http://www.sustainability.at/easy/. Access: February 19, 2003.

Williams, H., van Hooydonk, A., Dingle, P. & Annandale, D. (2000). Developing tailored environmental management systems for small business. Eco-Management and Auditing, 7(3): 106-113.

Wilson, R.C. (1998a). EMS awareness will define success of EMS. PollutionEngineering, 30(10): 43-44.

108

Wilson, R.C. (1998b). EMS success depends on thorough employee training. PollutionEngineering, 30(9): 47.

Withers, B. & Ebrahimpour, M. (2000). Does ISO 9000 certification affect the dimensions of quality used for competitive advantage? European ManagementJournal, 18(4): 431-443.

Woodside, G., Aurrichio, P. & Yturri J. (1998). ISO 14001 Implementation Manual.New York, McGraw-Hill.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Young, C.W. & Welford, R.J. (1998). An environmental performance measurementframework for business. Greener Management International, 21(Spring): 30-49.

Zackrisson, M., Enroth, M. & Widing, A. (2000). Environmental Management Systems – Paper Tiger or a Powerful Tool. Mölndal, IVF Industriforskning och Utveckling.

Zutshi, A. & Sohal, A. (2004). Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons, benefits and impediments. Technovation,24(4): 335-357.

109

Appendix I

Questionnaire for the first multiple-case study

1. Briefly describe how environmental aspects are identified and assessed:

2. Why do you survey and evaluate environmental aspects?

3. Estimate how long it takes/took to identify and assess the major environmental aspects:

4. Approximately how many people have been/are involved in this task?

5. Do you feel that you/these people have sufficient knowledge to complete the task without any problems?

Yes No

1 2 3 4

Annotation:

6. How do you experience the work to identify the company's environmental aspects?

Yes No

1 2 3 4

Annotation:

7. How do you experience the work to assess the environmental impact of these aspects?

Yes No

1 2 3 4

Annotation:

8. How do you experience the work to evaluate the above-mentioned aspects?

Yes No

1 2 3 4

Annotation:

9. If you were to completely re-evaluate the environmental aspects using the same methods and with the same pre-conditions, i.e. as if you had never done it before, do you think the result would have been the same?

Yes No

1 2 3 4

Annotation:

10. If some other person/group with similar competencies and knowledge of the company and its activities were to re-identify and re-evaluate the environmental aspects based on your routines, do you think the result would have been the same then?

Yes No

1 2 3 4

Annotation:

11. Do you think the work done regarding the environmental aspects could or should be changed/improved in some way?

Yes No

Annotation:

12. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a templated method for this work with group-wide guidelines?

Yes No

Annotation:

13. Do you see any benefits or drawbacks with this?

Appendix II

Interview guide and questionnaire for the second multiple-case study

Questionnaire

Part 1: Background facts

1. What type of operations does your organisation conduct?

2. Which of the following alternatives best describes your organisation?

A business group A company within a large business group A private company Part of a private company

3. Which of the following alternatives best describes your organisation?

Manufacturing company with its own environmental impact Service company with limited own environmental impact Service operations with own environmental impact Public administration with own environmental impact

4. How many employees are there in your organisation, i.e. the organisation on behalf of which you are answering the questions in this questionnaire?

5. According to which of the following standards is your company certified?

ISO 14001 EMASISO 9000

6. When was your company certified for ISO 14001 and/or EMAS?

7. Is the organisation governed by the requirements of a permit decision?

NoYes, please specify;

A: permit from the environmental court B: permit from the county administrative board C: obligation to notify a municipal council/board

Part 2: Routines for environmental aspects

8. From which sources have the data in the list of the organisation’s environmental aspects been gathered?

Own measurements Interviews and observations Environmental reports to the authorities Inventories and production reports

Financial accounts Purchasing documentation External audits or environmental enquiries Environmental training documentation Scientific reports and studies Government bodies, academic institutions or NGOs Suppliers and contractors Customers, consumers and stakeholders Industrial associations Others, please specify;

9. How often is the list of the organisation’s environmental aspects updated?

Several times a year Once a year Less than once a year

10. How many people are involved in gathering data for the list of the organisation's environmental aspects?

11. What positions do these people hold in the company?

12. How often are those environmental aspects that are considered to be significant re-evaluated?

Several times a year Once a year Less than once a year

13. How many people are involved in evaluating the organisation's environmental aspects?

14. What positions do these people hold in the company?

15. What training or experience do these people have?

16. Is any external help used when evaluating the organisation's environmental aspects?

NoYes, namely;

17. How many man-hours does it take to evaluate the organisation's environmental aspects?

18. What factors are included in the evaluation of the organisation’s environmental aspects?

Volumes Extent of environmental impact How serious the environmental impact is Likelihood of environmental impact occurring Permanency of the impact or damage

Regulatory control in accordance with the permit decision (applies only if the organisation is covered by a permit) Consequences of not complying with legislation Costs for changing the environmental impact Difficulties in changing the environmental impact, e.g. technical or organisational problems The effect the change has on other activities and processes, e.g. conflicts with marketing and quality requirements Customer attitudes Attitude of the general public and neighbours Attitudes of and suggestions from employees Other factors, please specify;

19. If stakeholders’ attitudes are included in the evaluation of the organisation’s environmental aspects, what methods are used to identify them?

Surveys and questionnaires Suggestions from employees MeetingsAdvisory citizen groups and general meetings Interviews Review of general reports, internal programmes and initiatives from stakeholders Market surveys Keep tabs on legislative developments Voluntary instructions and standards Exchange of electronic information Participation in interest groups linked to industry and the general public Direct communication with neighbours, authorities and customers Information from the media and other publication sources Others, please specify;

20. How are the organisation’s significant environmental aspects communicated internally to the employees?

Via environmental indicators Bulletin boards Environmental reports Staff magazine Intranet Minutes of meetings Orally at departmental meetings or equivalent Large-scale meetings Other method, please specify;

21. How are the organisation’s significant environmental aspects communicated internally to the management of the organisation?

Via environmental indicators Annual reports

Formal environmental reports Informal environmental reports Internet or intranet Staff magazine Minutes of meetings Orally at departmental meetings or equivalent Management’s review of the system Other method, please specify;

22. How are the organisation’s significant environmental aspects communicated externally to the general public and other stakeholders?

Via environmental indicators Annual reports Formal environmental reports Internet Open houses Information brochures Other method, please specify;

Part 3: Routines for establishing and monitoring environmental goals

23. What factors are taken into account when establishing the organisation’s environmental goals?

Significant environmental aspects Regulatory control in accordance with the permit decision (applies only if the organisation is covered by a permit) Consequences of not complying with legislation Costs for changing the environmental impact Difficulties in changing the environmental impact, e.g. technical or organisational problems The effect the change has on other activities and processes, e.g. conflicts with marketing and quality requirements Customer attitudes Attitude of the general public and neighbours Attitudes of and suggestions from employees Other factors, please specify;

24. How are the organisation’s goals and goal achievement communicated internally to the employees?

Bulletin boards Formal environmental reports Staff magazine Intranet Minutes of meetings Orally at departmental meetings or equivalent Large-scale meetings

Other method, please specify;

25. How are the organisation’s goals and goal achievement communicated internally to the organisation’s management?

Annual reports Formal environmental reports Internet or intranet Staff magazine Minutes of meetings Orally at departmental meetings or equivalent Management’s review of the system Other method, please specify;

26. How are the organisation’s environmental objective communicated externally to the general public and other stakeholders?

Via environmental indicators Annual reports Formal environmental reports Internet Open houses Information brochures Other method, please specify;

27. Are the costs of environmental management programmes measured?

YesNoIn certain cases

28. If the costs are measured, what are the total costs for all currently on-going environmental programmes?

Interview questions

Identification and assessment of environmental aspects

Where do the ideas for the tool/model for evaluating the organisation's environmental aspects?

How are environmental aspects in the organisation defined?

How do you experience the stage at which the organisation's environmental aspects are evaluated?

Do you feel that your assessment model and related routines are a valuable help when evaluating environmental aspects?

Do you feel that the environmental competence (environmental science and technology, environmental aspects, environmental legislation, environmental management systems and standards) in the organisation us sufficient to make an assessment of environmental aspects based on facts?

How well dispersed is the environmental competence throughout the organisation? Where in the organisation is this competence and to what extent is it used when assessing the environmental aspects?

Can you identify any limitations to a better evaluation of the environmental aspects?

Is there anything else you would like to add regarding environmental aspects?

Establishment and monitoring of environmental goals

Who establishes the organisation's environmental goals?

How are overarching environmental goals defined? (time, organisational scope, measurability, etc.)

How are detailed environmental goals defined? (time, organisational scope, measurability, etc.)

How are the environmental goals broken down?

How often are the environmental goals monitored/followed up?

How do you experience the stage at which the environmental goals are established and monitored/followed up?

How do you feel the level of commitment is in the organisation regarding the work with environmental goals?

Are the environmental goals related to production levels or the like?

Is there anything else you would like to add regarding environmental aspects?

Appendix III

Interview guide for the single-case study

Interview areas: companies in the environmental group

Attitudes to environmental work Drivers of environmental certification Expectations of environmental certification Thoughts on group certification Thoughts about the environmental training Thoughts on the project leader and the central coordinators Thoughts on the implementation of the environmental management system (EMS) Costs for implementing the EMS Environment-related benefits of the EMS Financial benefits of the EMS Other effects of the environmental management system Policy, objectives and action plans Cooperation within the group in the future Commitment to implementation of the EMS

Interview areas: environmental trainers

Structure of the environmental training Content of the environment training Commitment and interest shown by participants on the environmental training programme

Interview areas: project manager

In-company competence Thoughts on group certification Costs for implementing the EMS Commitment in the companies in the group Thoughts about the environmental training Policy, objectives and action plans

Interview areas: central coordinators

Thoughts on group certification Cooperation among central coordinators Problems with the EMS implementation Environment-related benefits of the EMS Financial benefits of the EMS

Paper I

Identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: an approach to a new reproducible method based on LCA-

methodology

Zobel, T., Almroth, C., Bresky, J. & Burman J-O. (2001)

Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(4): 381-396

Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396www.cleanerproduction.net

Identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMScontext: an approach to a new reproducible method based on LCA

methodology

T. Zobel a,*, C. Almroth b, J. Bresky b, J-O. Burman a

a Environmental Management Group, Department of Environmental Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea, Swedenb Product Stewardship Stora Enso Environment, Stora Enso, Sodra Mariegatan 18, SE-79180 Falun, Sweden

Received 25 April 2001; accepted 8 October 2001

Abstract

Identification and assessment of environmental aspects are crucial to an environmental management system, since significantaspects are decisive for other parts of the system. Stringency and transparency in identification and assessment are necessary if thisprocess is to be reproducible. Reproducibility is in turn important for the credibility of the entire management system. A surveyof the identification and assessment processes within the integrated forest product company Stora Enso has shown inadequaciesregarding the reproducibility. Positive features and areas of improvement have been identified. The results of the survey are thebasis for the development of a new, more reproducible method. This paper includes an approach for this new method that focuseson the identification process. The method is based on life cycle assessment methodology according to the international standardsISO 14040-42 and the documentation format in ISO 14048. The environmental aspects are aggregated in a classification andcharacterisation into impact categories. The categories are then used as operations environmental performance indicators. © 2002Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental management systems; Environmental aspects; Environmental assessment; Environmental performance evaluation; Lifecycle assessment

1. Introduction

To efficiently allocate resources, it is important forbusinesses to identify their own environmental aspectsand their potential impacts as well as the significance ofthese. The work needs to be structured in a transparentand stringent way, so as to be reproducible and therebycredible, to meet the demands of different interested par-ties and render effective internal work procedures [1,2].

In an environmental management system (EMS), theprocess of identification and assessment of environmen-tal aspects is crucial. The most significant aspects controlthe environmental objectives as well as the shape of theenvironmental management programmes, see Fig. 1.These aspects also determine the activities that shouldbe controlled by documented procedures and instructions

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-920-13218; fax: +46-920-91697.E-mail address: thomas.zobel@sb.luth.se (T. Zobel).

0959-6526/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0959- 65 26 (01)00 05 4- 3

and the personnel who should be given special environ-mental training [3–5].

Most EMSs in Swedish industry are implementedaccording to specifications in ISO 14001 and/or EMAS[3,6]. These specifications contain requirements thathave to be fulfilled before third-party certification and/orregistration can be achieved, but the method used tomeet these requirements is optional. In other words, thecriteria are stated, but the means of satisfying them arenot. The adopted methods for identification and assess-ment of environmental aspects can therefore differ con-siderably between different organisations. It is also dif-ficult for an organisation to fully satisfy the specifiedrequirements and to do this in a credible way, sinceguidelines for how this is to be accomplished are largelymissing. One way to confront this is to develop a methodto be implemented in the EMS that will help organis-ations to credibly satisfy the criteria.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the advantagesas well as the shortcomings of the methods for identifi-

382 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

Fig. 1. Overview of an example of current methods for the identifi-cation and assessment of the environmental aspects in relation to EPEand setting of objectives and targets.

cation and assessment of environmental aspects withinthe integrated forest company Stora Enso, as well as tointroduce and describe an approach to a new method.This paper contains a draft of such a method, neitherdeveloped fully nor ready for use. The long-term goalis, however, to develop a method for use in existingmanagement systems as well as in management systemsthat have to be implemented sooner or later withinStora Enso.

2. Background

Stora Enso’s main activities are production of maga-zine papers, newsprint, fine papers and packagingboards. Stora Enso also conducts extensive sawmillingoperations. The company is mostly active in Finland,Sweden, Continental Europe and North America. Some45 000 persons are employed in more than 40 countries,An Environmental Committee chaired by the DeputyCEO coordinates the company wide environmentalissues. The CEO and Deputy CEO make decisions onstrategic and policy issues. A company support unit,Stora Enso Environment, headed by the Senior VicePresident, Environment, works together with regionaloperational support teams, backed up by a team ofspecialists.

Most business units within Stora Enso haveimplemented an EMS according to ISO 14001 and/orEMAS. This means that each unit regularly monitors itsaspects and evaluates the significance of these. Still,there are no overall guidelines for how this work is tobe performed or how information is to be documented.As a consequence, the methods used can vary greatlybetween different units and the results from the methods

will most probably be very dependent on the person orpersons using the method. Because of this, transparencyand stringency in the identification and assessment ofaspects process might be lost and therefore also thereproducibility. Reproducibility is necessary for achiev-ing credibility, without which stakeholders may questionthe results.

Credibility in the identification and assessment pro-cess requires that data and information, as well as workprocedures, be described in such a detail that it is poss-ible to form an opinion of the quality of the data andthe way that it has been generated, or derived. If theinformation is derived from someone with sufficient andrelevant competence, the credibility might be furtherincreased [13]. To achieve reproducibility and facilitatecredibility, data and procedures must be described insuch a way that people inside or outside the organisationwith a certain competence, could go through the pro-cedures and obtain the same data. The process must inother words be characterised by stringency and trans-parency. A stringent process makes choices and assump-tions made when generating the data logical and consist-ent, thus easy to comprehend, while transparencyenables data review by making the information distinctand traceable. The key to transparency and stringencyand hence to reproducibility is structured and detaileddocumentation.

Stora Enso’s intention is to make the identification andassessment of environmental aspects more credible,which in turn will improve the credibility of the entireEMS, the management and the whole organisation. Cus-tomers, public authorities, media, auditors and otherstakeholders constitute an influential factor, since theycan have a bearing on the general apprehension of thecredibility of this work. As a greater focus is placed onenvironmental issues, achieving credibility means goodpublicity and possibly also competitive advantage.

To deal with the potential problem of non-stringentand non-transparent identification and assessment ofaspects processes, Stora Enso Environment has initiatedwork with a new model for identification and assessmentof environmental aspects; the intention is to achievecredibility and increased objectivity by making theidentification and assessment process more scientific andreproducible. If possible, this tool will also be linked andstructured to simplify environmental performance evalu-ation (EPE). A strong argument for a new method is therealisation that work concerning environmental issues isnot static but always in progress. Requirements willchange as new knowledge is publicised. People’s valu-ations change along with the society itself. Even thoughthe methods used today fulfil the present demands, thiswill not always be true. A good example is the moredistinct requirement regarding transparency in the newEMAS regulation [7].

383T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

3. Method

Current knowledge about existing aspects identifi-cation and assessment procedures is the basis for thedevelopment of new, more reproducible procedures. Toget a better understanding of identification and assess-ment of the aspects within Stora Enso, a survey of themethods used today has been carried out. The intentionwas not only to find the weaknesses and the potentialareas of improvement, but also to identify the satisfac-tory features of the process. An investigation of the opi-nions at the sites and how the work is experienced hasalso been a part of the survey. Information was gatheredby studying the environmental management handbooksand routines, the environmental reviews, a questionnaireand through personal contacts. The personal contactswere more of a complement to the other sources to verifythe information or to get more details. The survey wasbased on 14 business units listed in Table 1. The unitswere selected from those certified or registered to ISO14001 or EMAS by February 2000. Ten of these wererandomly picked and included in the study of hand-books, routines and reviews and five additional unitswere chosen for the questionnaire. The questionnairewas distributed to the environmental managers at theunits, and since two of them had responsibilities formore than two units, the questionnaire finally was dis-tributed to 13 managers. The information collected fromthe units was mostly of a qualitative nature. The resultsfrom the survey are valid only for conditions withinStora Enso and therefore cannot be applied directly tothe other organisations.

The results from the survey were used as a base fora new method for identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects. The new more reproducible is

Table 1Units included in the survey

Unit EMAS/ISO14001

Ala Sawmill 1998/1998Falun Red Painta 2000/1999Fors Mill 1995/1997Gruvon Sawmill 1998/1998Grycksbo Mill 1997/1997Hammarby Millb /1999Hylte Milla 1998/1998Kopparfors Sawmill 1999/1999Kvarnsveden Milla 1998/1997Ludvika Forest Administrationc 2000/1999Molndal Milla 1997/1997Norrsundet Mill 1999/1999Nymolla Mill 1998/1997Skoghall Mill 2000/2000

a Not included in study of handbooks, routines and reviews.b Not part of questionnaire survey.c Answer of questionnaire not received.

outlined according to the life cycle assessment (LCA)methodology in ISO 14040-42 [8–10] and the LCA datadocumentation format described in ISO 14048 [11]. Thestructure for environmental performance evaluationaccording to ISO 14031 [12] is also taken into account.

4. Surveying methods used today

To get a general idea of the possible areas of improve-ment and difficulties in the identification and assessmentof aspects within Stora Enso, a survey of the methodsused today has been performed. The intention was alsoto gain an understanding of how the work is experiencedwithin the units. The survey was limited to the businessunits in Table 1.

4.1. General description

Identification of the aspects is initially, for most busi-ness units, carried out in an environmental review andis, in addition, often performed in a way that does notmake it obvious where and why these aspects arise.Identification and assessment are repeated on a yearly oras-required basis, for instance when some change ismade in operations or in connection with audits. Identi-fication is done by a group representing the whole siteor individually for each department with a followingsummation for the entire unit. Information is collectedvia interviews, inspections and examination of docu-ments as environmental reports, control programmes andpermits, deviations noted, measurements, public com-plaints, etc. Assessment is mostly done at the same timeas identification, if necessary with assistance from thelocal environmental manager in cases when each depart-ment does the work, but it can also be the responsibilityof the management. The number of people involved inthis work usually varies between 3 and 12, but as manyas 60 have been recorded. The identification processdoes not follow any documented procedure. It is insteadmore often based on experience and knowledge of theoperations and where changes have occurred comparedwith the previous year. Assessment, however, is for mostunits performed according to a model that includes dif-ferent levels of significance decided by pre-set criteria.These criteria vary between units but often include someof the following:

� Level of environmental impact� Observance of legislative and regulatory requirements� Public complaints� Economical concerns� Probabilities of incidents� Technical concerns

Most units make the assessment in three levels of sig-

384 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

nificance. The distinctions between these levels are notalways obvious. The assessment is commonly compiledin a register for the entire unit and in the same documentthe corresponding environmental impacts are oftenstated. This identification is frequently done in agree-ment with the national or regional environmental targets[14]. Description of the impacts is often very brief.

4.2. Positive observations and areas for improvement

The main parts of the routines for identifying and set-ting levels of significance for the environmental aspectsare well outlined for most business units. Still, in orderto attain a reproducible method for the identification andassessment of environmental aspects, a few things mayhave to be added and/or adjusted. Both good elementsand areas of possible improvement have been recog-nised.

The concepts listed in Table 2 are examples of goodelements in the sense that they help in increasing repro-ducibility. Most of the elements included in Table 2could facilitate the identification and assessment process

Table 2Summary of good elements and possible improvements for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in the units included inthe survey

Element Purpose Possible improvements

Identification• Intention and business • States why the identification and assessment isdescription performed

• Gives an understanding of the aspects• Scope • Often briefly stated as ‘our business’ or as areas to • More distinct definition of system boundaries by

consider in ISO 14001 or EMAS stating included and excluded activities with ajustification

• Description of impact • Describes the environmental impact connected to • More detailed description is needed for theeach aspect assessment• Usually equal to national or regional environmentaltargets

• Routines for measurement and • Show the origin of data and how the aspects are • More detailed routines and registers for increasedmonitoring monitored transparency

• References between aspects and documentsdescribing how they are supervised

• Graphical flowchart • Helpful tool when defining system boundaries• Description of activities • Explains in more detail activities causing the • Mostly included in the review and could be done in

aspects greater detail• Makes the identification more transparent andstringent

• Consideration of life- cycle • Effort to take into account aspects linked to theeffects unit, but originating outside the gates

Assessment• Numbered assessment criteria • Increases the transparency and the understanding of

the assessment• Assessment basis • Explanation of the assessment• Well-defined assessment • Makes the assessment reproduciblecriteria

• Decreases the need for assessment basis• Comparison of permits and • Stating permitted emission levels compared toemission levels actual emission levels

and make it more reproducible. Unfortunately, they arenot always part of the procedures. Many of them couldalso be further developed and performed with greaterattention to detail, and the lack of any of them constitutesan area for improvement.

Some of the problems that will arise when the con-cepts in Table 2 are excluded, and consequently affectreproducibility, are viewed in Table 3. These problems,and scarce documentation of information on the whole,will make the identification and assessment proceduresinconsistent, which will gravely undermine the credi-bility of this work. In addition to the problems in Table3, the two major weaknesses are evident. First, the unitsseem to have difficulties in defining the ‘environmentalaspect’; and secondly, they give much importance toconcerns other than environmental when performing theassessment. Some of the problems mentioned will bepointed out here and commented on.

Inconsistency in the identification and assessment pro-cedures will make it difficult to perform comparisons ofenvironmental impacts between departments within aunit, or between different units. Comparisons between

385T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

Table 3Summary of comments and opinions concerning common guidelines for identification and assessment of environmental aspects

Advantages of common guidelines Disadvantages of common guidelines

• Guidelines would facilitate comparisons between units • Different units have different reasons to assess the aspects incertain ways

• Using the same methods would improve the possibilities to benefit from • This may have a negative impact on the level of commitmentother units’ experiences• Standard assessment among the units would be desirable. This would be • The units are so different that it may not be possible to usefacilitated if equal assessment criteria were used general guidelines• The work should be carried out according to outlined models to achieve • A disadvantage would be to try to implement something new in areproducibility functioning system• Support in environmental issues would be desirable, such as help in • Much time and effort has already been invested in this workdeciding which problems to prioritise in different regions, but the initiativehas to come from within the units• Exchange and co-operation in these issues can be useful • There is a risk that knowledge and commitment are lost

• Many units are very different and have different prerequisites,which is why it may be difficult to introduce general guidelines

departments are a tool for identifying where improve-ments are needed and where resources should be applied.For instance, with inconsistency in the assessment, thecredibility of such a comparison will be low and invest-ments may be done for the wrong reason. Inconsistencyin the assessment could arise due to undefined assess-ment criteria. The experience from the survey is that theassessment criteria used are seldom clearly defined orquantified.

Another major weakness in the identification andassessment process is, as mentioned above, that theinformation used is not described or documented in astructured way. Therefore, it will not be possible to forman opinion of the quality of the data and the relevanceof the evaluation made. Consequently, there is lack oftransparency and stringency. Inefficiencies in the internalwork procedures are also a result of insufficient docu-mentation. The information used in identification andassessment might have been registered for different pur-poses at different departments, e.g. the financial depart-ment, the laboratory, and production departments, but itssource is not always stated. To remedy this, referencesshould always be given in connection to the environmen-tal aspects if the information is not reported again.

The way environmental aspects have been identifiedand the method of data collection are examples ofimportant information that is not stated sufficiently. Withno such knowledge, it is impossible to get an under-standing of the quality of the information or the identifi-cation procedures. Information regarding supervision ofthe aspects usually does exist, for instance, in the rou-tines dealing with measurements and monitoring, controlprogrammes or environmental reports. Occasionally, ref-erences to these documents are given in the registerwhere the aspects have been compiled, or more fre-quently, in the environmental reviews. An improvementwould be to make this information more available bysummarising the procedures in the routines for handling

the aspects, or by always noting the references to thedocuments describing how data has been collected andanalysed in connection to the registered aspects. It is alsoimportant that the documents referred to give the infor-mation in sufficient detail to ensure transparency.Another example of information that has not been statedis how data have been aggregated or allocated. Assess-ment criteria concerning the contributions to the totalinternal load have been observed occasionally in caseswhere the assessment is carried out by each department.Allocations may then be needed to determine the contri-butions from a specific department. No such informationis given.

Defining environmental aspect is occasionally done insuch a way that the connection to the environment isvery indistinct. Most units state both the aspects and theactivities connected to them, but the aspects are in somecases synonymous with the activities that give rise tothem. The result is a causal chain of activities and anomission of the environmental interaction, which in turnmakes the concept of ‘environmental aspect’ somewhatvery vague. One example is the definition of the activity‘feeding into drying kiln’ as an aspect, instead of thenoise resulting from this operation. The aspect of thisoperation could in fact also be emissions of combustiongases to the atmosphere, due to the use of fossil fuelsin the transporting vehicles, or leakage of hydraulic oil.This is not clearly defined. Stating only the aspect andno activity, which sometimes occurs, is also problematicif there is no other description of the activity since itwill make it difficult to understand why and where theaspect arises.

Another important experience from the survey is thattoo much importance is often given to concerns otherthan the significance of the environmental impacts whenperforming the assessment. Examples are technicaloptions and economical requirements that should betaken into account later on when establishing environ-

386 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

mental objectives. This will however affectn neither thetransparency nor the stringency, but has a direct bearingon credibility.

4.3. Experiences and opinions within the businessunits

To bring forward how the performers experienceworking with environmental aspect, they got the opport-unity to give their opinions through a questionnaire andpersonal contact. They were asked to give their viewsof reasons for the process of identification and assess-ment of aspects, difficulties in the process, environmen-tal competence, reproducibility of current methods andthe need for common guidelines. Their thoughts aresummarised below.

The purpose of identification and assessment shouldbe obvious to the performer, but this does not alwaysseem to be the case. However, the environmental man-agers in most business units do show a good understand-ing. Some of the reasons for performing identificationand assessment, as understood by the units, arepresented below:

� It is required by the environmental management sys-tem.

� To find the significant environmental aspects.� To get a basis for setting environmental targets.� It is a tool in striving for continuous improvement.� To focus on the aspects.� To see what affects the environment in a certain

department.� To find out what is important and what to prioritise.

Even if the understanding is mostly good, it may still bea good idea to include in a routine a description of itspurpose and clarify why identification and assessmentare carried out, since such an understanding will prob-ably affect how these activities are performed. Anotherreason is the fact that the people responsible for thiswork and the other persons involved may not have thesame understanding.

The general opinion is that the identification of aspectsis easier than both the identification of possible impactsand the assessment. The reason for this may be that theidentification process is measurable and thus more tan-gible. It is more difficult to predict what actually happensin the environment due to the aspects, i.e. to identifythe possible impacts. The use of national environmentaltargets [14] to describe the impacts does not necessarilysimplify the identification of them, since some of themare very general and sometimes equal to higher ordereffects of other targets. Some targets will therefore bevalid for almost all the aspects, resulting in a very indis-tinct classification. Monitoring the aspects is in additionsomething that has been carried out even before the

implementation of the EMS; therefore, many of theaspects were identified a long time ago. After the initialidentification in the environmental review not much haschanged either, which is why this work may not be per-ceived as being very burdensome. Many aspects remainalmost the same year after year and, if new aspects arise,it is often due to some change in operation or incident,which makes them quite obviously recognisable. The cri-teria for assessment on the other hand may change moreoften due to new legislative requirements, new knowl-edge of the environmental impacts or measures taken toaddress the aspects, etc. Another reason why assessmentis experienced as difficult may be an insufficient basewhere information about the aspects and the assessmentcriteria is not thoroughly documented or assembled inone location. This base should be formed during theidentification process. A contributing factor is probablyalso the difficulty in identifying the impacts, since thisprocess is closely connected to the assessment, or partthereof.

A majority of the environmental managers feel thatthe person, or group of people, performing the identifi-cation and assessment had sufficient competence to dothis. Many of them point out that the group performingthis work would together have the necessary com-petence. However, one-third of the managers recognisethat they had rather poor training and competence inthe area.

Most of the managers believe that if the identificationof aspects were to be repeated, they or somebody elsewould come up with the same aspects, but that the resultsfrom the assessment might differ more as this procedureis to a greater extent based on personal value judge-ments. One-third of the managers believe that theirmethods for assessment are fully reproducible, but onlywhen the assessment is performed within the unit. Thegeneral opinion otherwise is that, if the assessment isrepeated, the results will be somewhat different from theinitial assessment, no matter who performs it. One-fourthof the managers are satisfied with their methods and donot believe that anything could be improved. This is anatural reaction, since these procedures are part of anEMS that has already been certified or registered. Themajority do, however, believe that improvements werepossible. Some of their motivations are summarisedbelow.

� Environmental issues are not static: improvementswill always be possible.

� The assessment routines are too person-dependent:improvements may therefore be needed.

� Increased objectivity is needed.� Environmental science is always in progress and the

assessment criteria may have to be updated, but thisprocess can never become objective.

387T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

� Improvements can be achieved by performing anLCA for the entire operation.

� A similar method could be useful within the units.

Only a narrow majority recognise common guidelinesconcerning the identification and assessment to be anadvantage. Comments and opinions from the units aresummarised in Table 4. Some managers point out thatall units are different and that, because of this, it willprobably not be possible to use general guidelines, or itmay be very difficult to make them relevant for all. Thiscould be true in the case of assessment, but should notbe a problem in the identification process. Further,guidelines for assessment could be adjusted to differentregions and types of businesses. Another common beliefamong the managers is that the use of guidelines willundermine the competence and commitment within theunits. The intention with guidelines is, however, onlyto facilitate the work and make the quality uniform byapplying some common concepts. Guidelines are sup-posed to be outlined in a general way and will only beguiding this work, not dictating every detail. The mainresponsibility will thus still be within the units and thework may be structured in different ways.

4.4. Conclusions from survey

Shortcomings in both transparency and stringency,and as a result in the reproducibility, have been observedin the identification and assessment procedures. Fre-quently this is due to insufficient documentation and theconsequence is an inconsistent and person-dependentresult with low credibility. Lack of transparency andstringency also makes the procedures more time-con-

Table 4Summary of problems observed in the survey and suggestions of measures

Problems Measure/ positive observation

• Vague definition of system boundaries and of what is included in the • Business descriptioninventory, as well as how external effects are treated

• Well-defined scope• Flowcharts• Description of life-cycle effects

• Difficulty understanding where and why the environmental aspects • Detailed activity descriptionsarise

• Distinct definition of the environmental aspects• Inadequate presentation of impacts and the recipients • Thorough description of impacts

• References to recipient descriptions and investigations• Statement of weather it is a local, regional or global issue

• Insufficient information about how the aspects are monitored and • Use of metadatahow data has been treated

• References to environmental records where the information isprovided.

• Inconsistent assessment, lacking transparency • Numbered, well-defined assessment criteria• Use of assessment basis• References to information used when performing the assessment

suming than they should be. Some of the recognisedproblems that will influence reproducibility negatively,as well as measures to correct them, are summarised inTable 3. Many of the measures suggested already existto some extent, but could be improved.

Assessment will probably, to some extent, always besubjective and perhaps should be, but is in some casescurrently too person-dependent. One conclusion from thesurvey is also that the model for assessment of theaspects sometimes does not fulfil its function. It ispointed out in the survey that environmental aspects arenot something new and that they have been monitoredlong before the EMS was implemented. The fact thatsome aspects are more significant than the others hasalso been known. Instead of using the model as it isintended, there may be a risk that assessment is basedon previous knowledge. In that case, assessment cannever be transparent. It has also been observed in thesurvey that much importance is sometimes given to otherconcerns in the assessment, than the significance of theimpacts, e.g. technical and economical concerns. Theremay therefore be a risk that too little focus is placed onthe environmental impacts when determining the sig-nificant aspects. This would not only affect the credi-bility, but is also not in agreement with the specificationsin ISO 14001, where technical and economical concernsshould be taken into account first, in the establishmentof the environmental objectives.

The central opinions within the units are that theidentification and assessment of environmental aspectsare currently considered quite difficult to perform, andthat the methods used are not fully reproducible andcould be improved. The most common improvementssuggested by the environmental managers are the use of

388 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

more objective methods, similar between the units, andthe use of LCA of the entire production apparatus. Theimplementation of a new method will probably requirea lot of time and effort, but this may be inevitable ifcredibility is to be achieved. The survey also indicatesthat the information needed to improve reproducibilityalready exists within the units, but needs to be compiledor revised.

When developing a new method that is common to allbusiness units, it is important to consider the differencesamong the units. The opinions expressed in the surveyand the observations made from it have been consideredin developing the new method. The approach taken inthis paper focuses on improving the identification pro-cedure. However, the conclusion from the survey is alsothat it will be essential to develop the assessment furtherin order to achieve credibility. The assessment however,is not part of the method outlined in the next section, asthis lies beyond the scope of this paper.

To fulfil the need for transparency and stringency,Stora Enso has chosen to base the method on LCA meth-odology. The use of LCA methodology has two majoradvantages: the use of well-documented data; and theapproach of breaking the issues and the work into tan-gible parts, hence simplifying the work. LCA is also arather well-developed, standardised method withrequirements of transparency. This approach agrees withsuggestions from the units and corresponds well to thestatement in Stora Enso’s environmental and socialresponsibility policy that says, “The concept of productlife cycle is considered guiding our environmental activi-ties and provides the framework for our efforts.” [15].

Stora Enso’s intention with the new method is to makethe identification and eventually the assessment of theaspects more reproducible, which should simplify thework and make it less dependent on the performer. Theintended method for identifying and assessing environ-mental aspects should not only be primarily reproduciblefor people directly involved, but also for other interestedparties like the management or the auditors. The docu-mented information is primarily intended for internaluse. Even though the intended method is primarily sup-posed to be reproducible for the user, it may still alsobe necessary to document information that is obvious tothe user. This is an important consideration for the otherinterested parties, like the environmental auditor or newemployees, and it also will secure reproducibility in thefuture. The fact that data may also be intended for poss-ible use for a different purpose or for another user in afuture application will place a greater demand on docu-mentation procedures.

5. Approach to new method

LCA is a technique for assessing the environmentalaspects and potential impacts associated with a product

or service. LCA methodology could be adaptable, atleast to some extent, in an EMS for the purpose of sur-veying environmental aspects [16]. Note, however, thatan EMS is applied to a site or organisation, while anLCA study follows a product through its life cycle. Dataused in an EMS will therefore be specific for onesystem/site, whereas data in an LCA can originate fromseveral different systems and contexts. A graphical pres-entation of the integration of LCA with EMS is shownin Fig. 2. The fundamental differences between LCA andEMS are important when considering the requirementsin the standards for LCA and when deciding the detailof the data documentation.

The methodological approach in this paper is outlinedaccording to LCA methodology described in ISO 14040-42 and the documentation format in ISO 14048. The newmethod will however not include any complete life cycleassessments; only parts of the methodology and specifi-cations on data format and quality are used. Optionalelements in LCA as grouping and weighting of impactscategories will not be used [10].

The method suggested is intended for implementationin existing routines as well as in new. The approach sum-marised in Fig. 3 should be considered as a framework.The inherent concepts will be commented on in the fol-lowing sections. The assessment referred to in Fig. 3 andin the subsequent sections is the assessment performedin the EMS, although not according to an LCA method-ology. The headings Goal and purpose and Procedurelie in Fig. 3 outside the frame for the method suggested.The reason for this is that these concepts already existto some extent in the current routines and they do nothave to be introduced separately in a new method. Sincethe concepts are important, they are still commented on.

As stated earlier in this paper, the environmentalaspects are the heart and the foundation of the EMS. Itis therefore essential that the goal and purpose of theidentification of aspects is documented and understood.

Fig. 2. Integration of LCA methodology in EMS [16].

389T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

Fig. 3. Approach to a method for the identification of environmen-tal aspects.

The purpose may be obvious, but it is important thatthere is no doubt whatsoever as to why the identificationis performed. If the purpose is misunderstood there isalways a risk that the work will be carried out incorrectlyor for the wrong reason and with insufficient quality.

In order to achieve reproducibility it is necessary todescribe the work procedures, i.e. how the work is per-formed, who is responsible and who performs the workand when the procedure is carried out initially and sub-sequently. The description should be so detailed thatthere is no uncertainty concerning the nature of the work.Currently, this is largely the case, but information aboutthe identification is often scarce. Addressing this inad-equacy means that information may have to be added,for instance regarding the use of metadata or a classi-fication and characterisation according to an LCA meth-odology as suggested here.

5.1. Definition of scope and system boundaries

System boundaries are borders between a system andits environment, or between two different systems.Definition of the system boundaries also defines thescope of the subsequent inventory, i.e. the unit processesthat are to be included in, or excluded from, the surveyof the aspects. A clear definition of the system bound-aries will increase the transparency and can be achievedby using a business/activity description, a technical over-view and a presentation of related external systems.

A short, general summary of the activities within abusiness gives an overview of the system boundaries and

provides a better understanding of the aspects that couldcome into question. It need not be detailed, but shouldcomprise what is produced, production capacity, centralactivities in the business, market, transports, environ-ment, etc. Anything that is excluded from the systemshould also be stated and justification should be givenfor the exclusions. This description helps to point outexternal systems connected to the business and thusmakes it possible to form an opinion of external effects.

An overview of the technical system studied, i.e. agraphical flowchart of the unit processes within thescope of the survey, facilitates the definition of the sys-tem boundaries, see Fig. 4. When identifying and quan-tifying the aspects in an EMS, the borders could be setat the gates of the business unit concerned. The technicaloverview would then be a flowchart of this unit, viewingall of its activities, and a gate-to-gate inventory wouldbe performed. Since the process flows at a unit can betraced far outside the production site, this definition ofthe scope would reduce and simplify the collection ofdata. If knowledge about external effects exists, it shouldbe included in the inventory as far as possible.

Performing a gate-to-gate inventory, it is important toremember that the aspects that arise outside the site, forinstance, production of additives, transports, extractionof raw materials, waste treatment, etc. can cause signifi-cant impacts on the environment, see Fig. 4. It is desir-able if these external activities can be included in theinventory; however, the possibilities for an organisationto influence or control these aspects are often limited. Itis not realistic to expect an organisation to perform com-plete LCAs to investigate and quantify all the environ-mental aspects that can be linked to its activities [16].But to neglect these aspects would be irresponsible andpossibly lead to sub-optimisations. A measure thatalleviates an internal problem might, for instance, trans-fer the problem to an external system or postpone it. Therecommendation is therefore to make a brief descriptionof the related external systems and the environmentalaspects that may arise as a result, as well as measurestaken, if any, to reduce them. The description could behandled in the inventory. The details of this survey mustbe determined site-specifically and depends on the sig-nificance of the aspects arising and the access to infor-mation. Even though it is better to focus on internal sys-tems at present due to limited possibilities to influenceexternal systems, it should be a long-term goal for thebusiness units to treat external systems the same way asinternal. Improvements in this area could be part of theordinary programme for environmental improvement.

Measures to reduce external aspects could consist ofroutines for the purchase of materials and services andefforts to decrease the generation of wastes or to mini-mise the use of resources and energy. COMPASS(Company Management Performance Assessment) andTCA (Transport Chain Assessment) are the two

390 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

Fig. 4. Example of a graphical flowchart and related external systems.

examples of tools that have been developed and used toaddress supply and transportation within Stora Enso, byevaluating the environmental management capability ofsuppliers and the impacts of transports, respectively [15].

5.2. Inventory

The inventory comprises a data collection phase, datacalculations, metadata documentation and a detaileddescription of the technical system and its unit processes.The purpose with the inventory is to identify and quan-tify the inputs and outputs of the technical systemdefined in the scope. The common approach in LCAmethodology is to conduct the inventory for each unitprocess separately with a summarisation of the totalflows [2]. This is adopted here, since it makes data col-lection more tangible and transparent. The methodologyalso has the advantage of making it easier to determinewhich unit processes contribute most to a specific aspect,which in turn will facilitate an understanding of meas-ures that can be used to make any necessary corrections.

The aim of the unit process description is to describethe process for which data will be collected, includingname, boundaries, and technology and the environmentalaspects related to it. A unit process is defined in the ISO14040 series as the “smallest portion of a product systemfor which data are collected when performing a lie cycleassessment” [8]. It may consist of one or several oper-ations, but should not include too many operations.Transparency and tangibility may then be lost. If, on theother hand, the chosen unit process is too small, thenthe workload during the data collection will increase andbe more difficult to perform. The technical scope, i.e.

where the process begins and ends, must be statedclearly.

Since the overall purpose of the model is to identifythe aspects, it is appropriate that the main emphasis ofthe unit process description is on the aspects that mayarise. This guarantees the transparency by giving anunambiguous picture of the related environmental issuesand the conditions under which they are generated. It isadvantageous if the aspects originating from an activityare listed in connection to the process description of thisactivity. Any flows in or out of the process that are neg-lected should also be stated and explained.

It is also important to indicate the circumstances underwhich data are collected, in this model preferably undernormal operating conditions. ISO 14001 and EMASstate, however, that abnormal operating conditions andemergency situations, too, should be considered in theidentifying process [3,6]. The heading Abnormal-operating conditions is consequently comprised in themodel, describing alterations in inputs and outputs dueto abnormal conditions, the risk for incidents and alsothe impacts of these conditions. If other documents thatrefer to this exist, there could be a reference to them.Measures to prevent incidents can be mentioned as well.Incident risks may also be handled in the classification.

While quantifying and registering the inputs and out-puts, it is important to document information about data(metadata) in order to secure transparency and strin-gency, thus making it possible to determine the qualityof data later in time. The flows in and out of a technicalsystem may consist of many different substances andmaterials. To structure information about them, they canbe sorted in categories, for instance [2]:

391T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

� Emissions to air� Emissions to water� Emissions to soil� Residuals and wastes� Nuisance� Energy and fuels

� Renewable� Non-renewable

� Resources� Raw materials (renewable/non-renewable)� Additives and Chemicals� Land and water use

� Product

Not all of these may come into question or be of interest,other categories may have to be used instead or sub-categories added. Descriptive names should be used inorder to clarify the direction and contexts of the flows.

The amounts and units of substances must be regis-tered, as well as the sampling procedures, i.e. measure-ment technology, measurement standard, frequency ofmeasurements and equipment. Data can also be collectedfrom the literature, estimations or mathematical model-ling. To assess the quality of the data, the sources andassumptions made must be stated. The precision andaccuracy as well as any uncertainties known about datashould also be mentioned. Data are often not useful inthe form in which they were originally recorded. If dataare further aggregated and statistically analysed, thismust also be explained.

It is stated in ISO 14040 that a technical systemshould ideally be modelled in such a way that the inputsand outputs are described as elementary flows, i.e. orig-inate from or enter the natural environment [8]. This willnot be possible in this inventory, since it is not a cradle-to-grave survey. The flows of intermediate materials andwastes between unit processes or across system bound-aries should instead be recorded and used as indicatorsof the environmental aspects that may arise externally,due to the production, use or disposal of these.

The properties of the substances and the intermediatematerials must also be given to define what is actuallymeasured. For example, the moisture content of wastesshould be stated. It may also be necessary to explain thecontent or the name of the measured parameter. Termslike hazardous waste and industrial waste are someexamples that could include several different types ofmaterials and should thus be defined.

Sometimes allocations of emissions or use ofresources and energy are needed between unit processes;e.g. when measured entities comprise contributions fromseveral unit processes and no better distinction can bemade. All calculations made to allocate such entitiesmust be described fully. Allocation rules in ISO 14041should be followed.

The collection date of data and the signature of the

performer should be noted. When the procedure isrepeated, their identity and when they performed the pro-cedure will then be clear. The date may have to be givenas an interval if data differ in age. A summary of theabove discussion and the unit process description phaseare given in Table 5.

After data have been collected for the different unitprocesses within the defined technical system, a sum-marisation of equal substances must be performed. Thetotal contribution to different environmental impactsfrom the inputs and outputs of the system surveyed canthen be calculated.

Since the significance of an aspect and its impact arelargely dependent on the recipient, the recipient shouldalso be described. A description of the recipients willtherefore facilitate assessment. The descriptions aredependent on the specific recipient; thorough recommen-dations in this regard are therefore outside the scope ofthis paper.

5.3. Classification

Classification aims at translating emission data fromthe inventory to effect-oriented data by sorting sub-stances into impact categories. This translation willfacilitate assessment and is a way of describing theenvironmental impact connected to the identifiedaspects. Classification can be compared to the use ofnational environmental targets, as mentioned in the sur-vey. The difference is the ambition to classify accordingto primary effects to avoid double counting [2]. The dis-tinction between categories will be more obvious and asmaller number of categories will be needed. If a charac-terisation is performed, it is important to avoid doublecounting, which is the intention of the method suggested,and a better distinction between the impact categorieswill also facilitate the classification, i.e. the descriptionof the impacts. The chosen impact categories shouldreflect the environmental issues related to the technicalsystem studied, but the choice is also very dependent onthe characterisation models available and their scientificcredibility [2]. When choosing impact categories andcharacterisation methods, the requirements and rec-ommendations in ISO 14042, as well as recommen-dations from SETAC, should be followed as far as poss-ible. Impact categories for the new method will bechosen from the most recent recommendations. Atpresent the categories would be as outlined in Table 6,recommended by SETAC in the International Journal ofLCA in May 1999 [17].

The categories and subcategories above will not coverall the environmental aspects that may arise within aunit, which is why others may have to be added andused. For instance, impacts caused by noise and odour,impacts caused by physical accidents, or non-toxic

392 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

Table 5Summary of unit process description and data collection

Unit process description Data documentation/ Metadata

• Name • Substance name (environmental aspects sorted in categories)• Technical content and functionality (focus on environmental aspects) • Amount and Unit• Operating conditions (circumstances under which data are collected) • Data collection/sampling procedures

• Properties/definition of measured entities• Abnormal operating conditions and incident risks • Data treatment and allocations

• Uncertainties• Date and Signature

Table 6Impact categories recommended by SETAC [17]

Impact categories Sub-categories

• Extraction of abiotic resources • Extraction of deposits (e.g. fossil fuels and mineral ores)• Extraction of funds (e.g. groundwater, salt and clay)• Extraction of flow resources (e.g. solar energy, wind and surfacewater

• Extraction of biotic resources• Land use • Increase of land competition

• Degradation of life-support functions• Bio-diversity degradation due to land use

• Climate changea

• Stratospheric ozone depletiona

• Human toxicityb

• Eco-toxicityb

• Photo-oxidant formationa

• Acidificationa

• Nutrificationa

a Included in approach to model.b Impact category does not meet ISO requirements.

impacts related to the work environment must also beconsidered [17].

A final choice of impact categories will, however, notbe suggested here. People representing all business unitswithin Stora Enso will decide on impact categories tobe used in the method. As far as possible, all units willuse the same impacts categories, so as to facilitate thecomparison between units. The major problem whenchoosing categories is the lack of well-establishedcharacterisation models. More than half of the categoriesin Table 6 have various characterisation models, butnone for which there is a scientific consensus. The categ-ories marked in Table 6 will be used in the model, butother categories will be added. After a decision on categ-ories, Stora Enso Environment will cover the develop-ment of established and new impact categories, and newrecommendations might be given to the units.

5.4. Characterisation

After classification, characterisation should be perfor-med to evaluate the contributions of the inputs and out-

puts to the different impact categories. This phase in themethod is primarily included to facilitate environmentalperformance evaluation. By using characterisation fac-tors to summarise the substances contributing to thesame category, the potential environmental impact canbe calculated. The characterisation should be based onscientific methods to enable comparisons of potentialimpacts between different years or between differentbusiness units or departments within a unit. This shouldbe done by calculating the size of the impacts in relationto a reference substance. The same calculation methodsor equivalency factors must then be used from year toyear or between the units, since reproducibility is ofgreat concern. It is important to observe that a compari-son between different impact categories, e.g. climatechange and nutrification is not possible, as they describecompletely different effects and have different units.

Characterisation factors from CIT Ekologik will beused in the model. Unfortunately, these are not publiclyavailable. When better publicly available characteris-ation factors become available, then these can be usedinstead to increase the transparency further.

393T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

5.5. Environmental performance evaluation

The environmental performance of an organisationcan be evaluated by comparing different indicators withthe environmental performance criteria set by the man-agement. An early approach for establishing environ-mental performance indicators (EPI) was adopted by theEuropean Green Table (EGT) in the EPI project [18]. Inthe handbook following the project, EGT describes theestablishment process and suggests management andoperations indicators for different branches of the indus-try. The operations indicators suggested are mostly emis-sions of single substances related to production rates.

A literature review shows that the research in the areais extensive, but the results and conclusions are in mostcases similar to the ones in the EPI project [19–23]. In1999, the standard ISO 14031 for EPE was published.ISO 14031 includes guidelines for establishing indi-cators and suggestions for different indicators similar tothe ones in EGT’s handbook. The major difference hereis that the standard also includes environmental con-dition indicators. The content in ISO 14031 is furtherdeveloped by Bennet and James [24] and Jasch [25].

The Global Environmental Management Initiative(GEMI) takes a somewhat different approach. GEMI hasdeveloped a self-assessment programme (ESAP) formeasuring corporate environmental performance [26].The programme is mostly concerned with measuringmanagement performance. ESAP has been developedfurther by Eagan and Joeres [27]. Their version, GMAT,makes it possible to create a graphical environmentalprofile for organisations, which could be very useful forbenchmarking between different organisations or depart-ments.

In the method suggested in this paper, classificationand characterisation facilitate EPE. These processes willreduce the number of parameters that are to be comparedin such an evaluation, as compared with traditional indi-cators, by summarising all contributions to a specificenvironmental problem in one number, such as GlobalWarming Potential (GWP) or Acidification Potential(AP). These numbers will thus be the indicators and canbe compared from year to year, or between differentdepartments within a business unit to see where the gre-atest contributions to an environmental problem arise.Comparisons can also be made between different unitsusing the same characterisation models. If the impactcategories suggested by SETAC were used in the model,the total number of indicators would be 14. This rathersmall number would make it possible to create a graphi-cal environmental profile for operations similar to theone for management described by Eagan and Joeres [27].The GEMI self-assessment programme could thereforebe developed further.

The environmental performance criteria correspond tothe objectives or targets in the EMS [12]. If a character-

isation is used, the objectives or targets can be expressedas an intention to reduce the contributions to a certainenvironmental problem (impact category), instead of anintention to reduce the amount of a certain substancereleased, which is often the case today. The advantageis that the interaction with the environment will be moreobvious, since this way of measuring environmental per-formance focuses on the environmental problem. Therisk for sub-optimisations will hence decrease. A meas-ure to decrease the released amounts of a substance con-tributing to one impact category could, e.g. also causean increase in the amount of another substance contribu-ting to this impact. The result could be that the totalcontribution to the environmental problem stays thesame, or changes very little in relation to the investmentsmade. By focusing on the environmental problem, thistype of issue could be avoided. It may not be possibleto include many of the aspects in the characterisation,due to the current lack of well-established characteris-ation models. Consequently, all objectives and targets,i.e. environmental performance criteria, cannot beexpressed as reductions in contribution to a specificenvironmental problem, and the indicators will have toremain as amounts or relative measures of different sub-stances, as is often the case today.

Sub-optimisations between different environmentalproblems may still exist, which is why it is important totake a standpoint as to which problems should be givenpriority. This standpoint should primarily have a scien-tific base and could be facilitated by the recipientdescription performed in the inventory of the suggestedmethod. Other considerations that are taken today, suchas legislative requirements, public opinions, technicaland economical concerns, would still be important. Boththe assessment and the setting of the objectives and tar-gets will be influenced by the standpoint taken.

An overview of the suggested method and its connec-tions to the environmental performance evaluation aregiven in Fig. 5. This overview can be compared withthe example of the current methods and environmentalperformance evaluation in Fig. 1. The principal differ-ence is that no characterisation is performed today. Theindicators have to be derived from the inventory directly.Some of the indicators in the suggested method may,however, also have to be collected from the inventory,if aspects cannot be aggregated in a characterisation.

The classification will be of greater importance in thesuggested method than the description of impacts in thepresent procedures. The reason for this is that the assess-ment will be partly performed based on criteria connec-ted to prioritised environmental issues in the suggestedmethod. Hence, what will actually be assessed will bethe significance of the impact categories. A knowledgeof which aspects contribute to which impact categoriesis thus important, since the significant aspects will bethose classified to a significant category. However, it

394 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

Fig. 5. Overview of suggested method in relation to EPE and estab-lishment of objectives and targets.

may be necessary to prioritise the aspects that should begiven primary consideration. The current description ofimpacts facilitates the assessment only occasionally,since the criteria seldom correspond to a certain environ-mental issue and the descriptions often are very brief.The reason why the characterisation is not placeddirectly beneath the classification in Fig. 5 is that theaggregation of substances made in the characterisationwill not be part of, or facilitate the assessment. Prioritis-ation and assessment of significant environmental issuesbased only on the size of the quantified potential impactswill not be possible, as they represent totally differenteffects in the environment. Other factors will have to beconsidered for this purpose, primarily the condition inthe recipient. In addition, it may not be possible to con-vert all aspects classified to an impact category into com-mon units either, but the significance of these still hasto be assessed. The application of the characterisationresults is instead to measure the environmental perform-ance, which entails comparison of the category resultsfrom year to year and comparison between differentbusiness units. For the benchmarking process, the site-independent characterisation factors used in the modelmakes the comparison easier, since no local conditionsare taken into account. If results from the EPE were onlyto be used within each unit, site-independent characteris-ation factors would probably not be the best choice, sincethe results show potential environmental impact ratherthan the actual impact. But in this case, benchmarkingbetween units is prioritised.

5.6. Implementation

As mentioned, many concepts in the method sug-gested already exist to some extent within the units. This

is an advantage, as it will simplify the implementationof the method. It will be necessary to compile the infor-mation in one place or give references to where theinformation is provided. To enable this, a detailed inven-tory may have to be performed to survey informationthat currently exists and where it is documented, as wellas what needs to be added or revised. Before theimplementation of any method, it will also be importantto train personnel with respect to why and how themethod should be utilised, as well as the functions andtheories of the classification and characterisation.

The information about the environmental aspects andthe procedures for dealing with them is currently oftenregistered in different documents. General information,e.g. explaining purpose, procedures and responsibilities,is usually given first with references to appendices wherethe aspects are compiled and assessed. How the conceptsin the method outlined in Fig. 5 are reported on isoptional and depends on what is the most practicable.With a division of the information as mentioned above,it would however be natural to add the Definition ofscope and system boundaries in the first document sum-marising the general information. The other concepts inthe method could be included in the appendices wherethe aspects are compiled. The description of the externalsystems could possibly also be included here, instead ofin the general document as part of the definition of thescope and system boundaries. External systems could betreated as the internal unit processes as far as possible,depending on the availability of information. The recipi-ent descriptions will have to be compiled separately, butwith references included in the register in which theaspects are compiled.

When the identification and assessment of the aspectsare carried out department-wise, the unit processdescriptions and data documentation in the method sug-gested should be the responsibility of the respectivedepartment. Since the classification aims at facilitatingthe assessment, this should thus also be performeddepartment-by-department. All other concepts in themethod could be the responsibility of the environmentalmanager or the environmental department.

6. Conclusions

Implementing the method outlined in this paperinitially means an increased workload. However, mostof the information required by the method already exists,somewhere within the business units, which will facili-tate implementation. Further, the elements included inthe method, e.g. well-defined system boundaries, unitprocess descriptions, and metadata, constitute infor-mation that will not have to be frequently updated, asthis type of information does not change much from yearto year. The quantity of the released or consumed sub-

395T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

stances will have to be registered and compiled yearly,but this should already be performed at present and thusnot mean very much extra work. After an initial peak,the workload can hence be expected to decline. Theinitial work performed to structure the documentationcould actually be seen as an investment, since well-docu-mented information will facilitate data handling or trac-ing information or errors. In addition, making the infor-mation more available in a transparent and stringentmanner will be a necessity to achieve credibility. Makingthe identification of the aspects reproducible is only thefirst step towards credibility, but it will not be sufficient.The assessment will have to be revised as well, as it isnot reproducible or consistent at present.

For the purpose of evaluating environmental perform-ance, use of the aggregated results from a characterisationhas been suggested in this paper. However, before suchcharacterisation is performed, the uncertainties of theselected models must be assessed in detail. It can also beargued that the use of characterisation results for evaluat-ing environmental performance might reduce staff com-mitment with regard to the use of EMS within the units,since the improvements will not be obvious. A reductionin the characterisation results, e.g. global warming poten-tials, might be experienced as more abstract thandecreases in the amounts of a released substance. If it ismade clear that the characterisation results are connectedto a specific environmental issue, this should not pose aproblem. The sizes of the calculated potentials are eithermeasurable or comparable between different years in thesame way emission quantities are, for which reasonimprovements should be recognisable. It might even beadvantageous to use characterisation results, as the con-nection to the environment will be more obvious, whichmight not always be the case when amounts of releasedor consumed substances are used.

Since not all aspects can be aggregated in a character-isation, due to the lack of well-established characteris-ation models, it will also be necessary to investigate howsuch aspects should be handled in this process. Theuncertainties of the characterisation models must also beassessed, as mentioned above. It is also important toinvestigate which impact categories should be used inthe classification and how the aspects should be sortedinto these categories. Impact categories are essential tofacilitate the assessment. In its present form, the assess-ment will have to be improved, if possible with astronger connection to the condition of the recipient.Which assessment criteria to use and how, should alsobe investigated.

A continuance of the work described in this paper isexpected. What will be needed is an inventory of theexisting documentation procedures and informationflows. This knowledge can thereafter be used as a basiswhen developing the method further, primarily the datadocumentation and process descriptions in the inventory

and the definition of scope and system boundaries. Someconcepts may have to be added and others revised.Finally, how the information should be structured withinthe units will also have to be investigated; however, thismay be performed differently between the units.

References

[1] Ryding S-O. Miljoanpassad produktutveckling. Stockholm: Indu-striforbundet, 1995.

[2] Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic guidelines on life cycleassessment. Copenhagen: Nord; 1995. p. 20.e

[3] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14001: Environmentalmanagement systems — specification with guidance for use.ISO; 1996.

[4] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14004: Environmentalmanagement systems — general guidelines on principles, systemsand supporting techniques. ISO; 1996.

[5] Brorson T, Larsson G. Environmental management. Stockholm:EMS, 1999.

[6] EEC. Council-Regulation (EEC) No. 1836/93 of 29 June 1993allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrialsector in a Community Eco-management and audit scheme,EMAS-Regulation. Brussels: EEC; 1993.

[7] Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) allowing voluntary par-ticipation by organisations in a community Eco- management andaudit scheme. Brussels: EEC; 1998.

[8] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14040: Environmentalmanagement — life cycle assessment — principles and frame-work. ISO; 1997.

[9] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14041: Environmentalmanagement — life cycle assessment — goal and scope defi-nition and inventory analysis. ISO; 1998.

[10] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14042: Environmentalmanagement — life cycle assessment — life cycle impact assess-ment. ISO; 1999.

[11] International Standard Organisation. ISO/WD 14048: first work-ing draft of ISO 14048 LCA documentation format. ISO; 2000.

[12] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14031: environmentalmanagement — environmental performance evaluation — guide-lines. ISO; 1998.

[13] Palsson A-C. Introduction and guide to LCA data documentation,CPM report 1999:1. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Tech-nology, 1999.

[14] Naturvardsverket. Ren luft och grona skogar; forslag tillnationella miljomal 1997, Naturvardsverkets rapport 4765. Stock-holm: Naturvardsverket; 1997.

[15] Stora Enso Environmental Report 1999.[16] Finkbeiner M, Wiedemann M, Sour K. A comprehensive

approach towards product and organisation related environmentalmanagement tools. Int J LCA 1998;3(3):169–78.

[17] Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt,W. Muller-Wenk R. Best available practice regarding impact cat-egories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment,Int J LCA 1999;4(2):66–4.

[18] European Green Table. Environmental performance indicators inindustry: a system for corporate environmental performanceevaluation. Oslo: EGT; 1993.

[19] Thoresen J. Environmental performance evaluation — a tool forindustrial improvement. J Cleaner Prod 1999;7(5):365–70.

[20] Azzone G, Manzini R. Measuring strategic environmental per-formance. Business Strategy Environ 1994;3(1):1–14.

[21] Azzone G, Noci G, Manzini R, Welford R, Young CW. Definingenvironmental performance indicators: an integrated framework.Business Strategy Environ 1996;5(2):69–80.

396 T. Zobel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 381–396

[22] James P. Business environmental performance measurement.Business Strategy Environ 1994;3(2):59–66.

[23] Young CW, Welford RJ. An environmental performancemeasurement framework for business. Greener Manage Int1998;21(Spring):30–49.

[24] Bennett M, James P. ISO 14031 and the future of environmentalperformance evaluation. Greener Manage Int1998;21(Spring):71–85.

[25] Jasch C. Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. JCleaner Prod 2000;8(1):79–88.

[26] Global Environmental Management Initiative. Environmentalself-assessment program. Washington, DC: GEMI; 1992.

[27] Eagan PD, Joeres E. Development of a facility-based environ-mental performance indicator related to sustainable development.J Cleaner Prod 1997;5(4):269–78.

Paper II

Factors of importance in identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in Swedish

organizations

Zobel, T. & Burman, J-O. (2004)

Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(1): 13-27

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27www.cleanerproduction.net

Factors of importance in identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in Swedish

organizations

T. Zobel ∗, J.-O. BurmanEnvironmental Management Group, Department of Environmental Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea, Sweden

Received 21 February 2002; accepted 8 November 2002

Abstract

Research is lacking on the process of identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an environmental managementsystem (EMS) context. The aim of this paper is to contribute knowledge by identifying factors of importance for the process thatcan be used as a basis when developing existing methods for identification and assessment of environmental aspects. The empiricalbase is quantitative and qualitative data from 46 ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered organizations from three counties inSweden. Problem areas are also identified through a review of the concept literature in the EMS area. Six important areas wherethe identification and assessment process can be improved are identified: the definition of environmental aspects, the proceduresfor update of aspects, the aggregation of aspects, the exclusion of business considerations in the assessment, employee and stake-holder participation, and the competence levels of people involved in the process. Since the empirical data is taken from Swedishorganizations, the results of this study are valid for Swedish conditions and may not be valid for other countries.© 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental Management Systems (EMS); ISO 14001; Environmental aspects; Swedish organizations

1. Introduction

In working systematically with environmental issuesin Swedish organizations the concept that is most com-monly employed is that of the Environmental Manage-ment System (EMS). Most of the EMSs in Swedishindustry are implemented according to the internationalstandard ISO 14001 or the EU-regulation Eco-manage-ment and audit scheme (EMAS). At the time for thisstudy, the total number of ISO 14001-certified orEMAS-registered organizations in Sweden were a littleless than 1000 [1].

The implementation of an ISO 14001-based EMS usu-ally starts with an initial review of the present situation.The review includes an inventory of all environmentalaspects, relevant laws and regulations and existingenvironmental procedures. The initial review forms the

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-46-920-491398; fax: +1-46-920-91697.

E-mail address: thomas.zobel@sb.luth.se (T. Zobel).

0959-6526/03/$ - see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00167-1

basis for the environmental policy, environmental objec-tives and targets and environmental management pro-grams. The system is then built up by documented pro-cedures and instructions controlling activities related tothe most significant environmental impacts. When thesystem is implemented, system audits are made to checkthe efficiency of the system and management carries outa management review to check the system and improve-ments [2,3].

Elements of the system in which environmentalaspects are identified and significant aspects are determ-ined, are, without a doubt, the most important parts ofthe standard and the EMS, since these elements deter-mine the shape and focus of the entire EMS [4,5,6]. Therole of the significant aspects is illustrated in Fig. 1. Thesignificant aspects form the basis for establishingenvironmental objectives, targets and programs. Therelation of the significant aspects to the environmentalpolicy is not as clearly stated in ISO 14001 as therelation to the objectives, but to be able to establish asuitable environmental policy an organization must beaware of its significant aspects. In addition, the signifi-

14 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

Fig. 1. The role of environmental aspects in an EMS based on specifications in ISO 14001 and ISO 14004 [2,3].

cant aspects are instrumental in determining which indi-viduals should get additional environmental training andwhich procedures and instruction should be documented.The environmental aspects are also the starting pointwhen establishing environmental performance indicators(EPI), which help the organization to evaluate itsenvironmental performance.

2. Aims of the study

Research is lacking on the process of identificationand assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS con-text. Therefore, little is known about how organizationshave interpreted the specifications in ISO 14001 and for-med their process of identifying and assessing environ-mental aspects. Better knowledge about how organiza-tions are treating the environmental aspects of ISO14001 is a condition for developing new and bettermethods. The general aim of this paper is to contributesome knowledge that can form the basis for developmentof better methodologies. A more specific aim is to ident-ify factors of importance when identifying and assessingenvironmental aspects within an EMS context. To beable to reach the goals of this study, a relatively largeempirical base is needed. Empirical data were collectedthrough multiple case studies. Table 1 summarises thekey features of the case organizations.

3. Methods

3.1. Selection of case organizations

The study was carried out from November 1999 toMay 2000. Empirical data from a total of 46 organiza-

tions were collected from organizations in the countiesof Vasterbotten and Norrbotten in the north of Swedenand Jonkoping in the south. A large number of case stud-ies were chosen, making it possible to also collect andanalyse quantitative data. Two areas were chosen tomake it possible to analyse geographical differences1.The organizations were selected according to two majorcriteria. First, the organizations should be located inNorrbotten, Vasterbotten or Jonkoping. Secondly, theorganizations should have implemented an EMS accord-ing to the requirements in ISO 14001 and/or EMAS byNovember 1999. Two Internet-based registers containingcertified/registered organizations in Sweden were orig-inal sources [7,8]. The two criteria were applied to theregisters, resulting in a total of 60 relevant organizations.Fourteen organizations were unable to participate, whileeight agreed to answer a questionnaire but did not havetime for a visit.

3.2. Research design

The aim of this paper is to contribute information sothat new theories can be built, rather than to test existingtheory. According to Jensen (1995), a qualitativeresearch approach is suitable in this case [9]. Jensen’ssuggestion is followed in this paper, but the qualitativeapproach is complemented with quantitative data whenpossible.

The qualitative data were obtained mainly throughinterviews and studies of documentation. On-site obser-vations were also used, but mainly to get an understand-ing of the nature of the activities and their environmental

1 The counties of Vasterbotten and Norrbotten are in this papertreated as one geographical area.

15T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

Table 1Characteristics of the case organizations (1euro = USD 0.91; August 29, 2001)

Case Code Line of business No. of Annual EMS basisNACE emp. turnover

106∗Euros

Norrbotten/Vasterbottena 27 Manufacture of basic metals 350 65.2 ISO 14001b 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 32 9.0 ISO 14001

60 Land transport/ transport via pipelinesc 14 Other mining and quarrying 50 0.1 ISO 14001

26 Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral productsd 22 Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media 32 3.9 ISO 14001e 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except 85 – ISO 14001/EMAS

furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting matterf 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 95 2.3 ISO 14001/EMAS

36 Manufacture of furniture/ manufacturing n.e.c.g 21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 470 134.8 ISO 14001/EMAS

24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical productsh 40 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply 102 343.5 EMASi 37 Recycling 90 – ISO 14001j 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 2200 – ISO 14001k 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/ 200 ISO 14001

manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting matterl 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 640 81.7 ISO 14001m 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 58 7.7 ISO 14001

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcyclesJonkoping

n 21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 100 12.5 ISO 14001/EMAS25 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products

o 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 250 13.1 ISO 14001p 36 Manufacture of furniture/manufacturing n.e.c. 250 6.6 ISO 14001q 27 Manufacture of basic metals 43 10.4 ISO 14001/EMASr 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 170 1.5 ISO 14001

29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.s 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 93 8.6 ISO 14001t 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 350 96.6 EMASu 33 Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks 120 – ISO 14001v 27 Manufacture of basic metals 1500 238.3 ISO 14001

28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment74 Other business activities

w 25 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 400 106.7 ISO 14001x 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 650 74.6 ISO 14001/EMASy 60 Land transport/ transport via pipelines 175 15.8 ISO 14001

63 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities/ activities of travel agenciesz 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 72 – ISO 14001aa 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 170 22.4 ISO 14001bb 63 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities/activities of travel agencies 211 – ISO 14001cc 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 380 68.8 ISO 14001/EMASdd 70 Real estate activities 40 13.7 ISO 14001ee 51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 12 1.9 ISO 14001ff 29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 550 – ISO 14001

28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles

gg 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except 33 11.0 ISO 14001furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting matter

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycleshh 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/ 70 19.6 ISO 14001

manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting matterii 29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 175 15.8 ISO 14001jj 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 230 21.4 ISO 14001kk 51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 20 5.4 ISO 14001ll 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 65 7.0 ISO 14001

16 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

aspects. The on-site observations were also used forestablishing a good relationship with the respondent. Itis necessary for the respondent to completely trust theinterviewer, since this will facilitate the release ofinternal documents for later studies. In all cases studied,the environmental manager was the respondent. Theenvironmental manager is the obvious choice in thiscase, since he/she is usually responsible for the identifi-cation and assessment of environmental aspects. Theinterviews were carried out as open interviews, but theinterviewing process could not be regarded as in-depthinterviewing, since the respondents mainly describedexisting facts about the EMS and the environmentalaspects. Standardised interview schemes were used, butthe managers also got the opportunity to speak freelyabout how they experienced working with environmen-tal aspects.

All qualitative data were coded and analysed using thecomputer software Q.S.R. NUDIST.

In addition to the qualitative data, quantitative datawas also collected from the case organizations. Since aqualitative research approach was prioritized, the organi-zations were not randomly selected. One should there-fore, be careful to generalize from the results in thispaper. Simple regression analyses were used to analysesome of the quantitative data.

It should be noted that since all the empirical data aretaken from Swedish organizations, the result of thisstudy are valid for Swedish conditions only.

3.3. Validity and reliability

The research design in this study has been chosen tomake the construct, internal and external validity, as highas possible. Recommendations by Yin (1994) are fol-lowed [10]. According to Yin, construct validity isincreased by the use of multiple sources of data. The datain this study were collected through interviews, literaturereviews, documentation studies and on-site observations.To ensure the internal validity, a so-called triangulationapproach was used, making it possible to compare differ-ent sources with each other [11]. The requirements forexternal validity were fulfilled through comparison ofthe findings from the 46 different case organizations.The collected data have also been compared to relevantsections in the concept literature.

The gathering of information from several differentsources increases not only the validity but also thereliability [12]. However, it is not possible to achievefull reliability, since the research process is largelyinfluenced by the author’s frame of mind.

4. Environmental aspects in concept literature

The specifications in ISO 14001 contain requirementsthat have to be fulfilled before third-party certification

can be achieved, but the methods used to meet theserequirements are optional [2,4]. The adopted methods foridentification and assessment of environmental aspectscan therefore differ considerably between differentorganizations. It is difficult for an organization to fullysatisfy the specified requirements in the standard, sinceguidelines for how this is to be accomplished are larg-ely missing.

Organizations with EMAS-based EMSs have experi-enced the same problems with environmental aspects asorganizations with ISO 14001-based EMSs because thefirst EMAS-regulation also lacked guidance in the area[13]. However, the EMAS-organizations get some guid-ance in the new EMAS-regulation, EMAS II, but thisinformation will most probably not be enough [14].

Organizations needing ideas for their evaluation pro-cess often turn to other organizations or environmentalconsultants for help. They usually also search for tips inone or several EMS guidebooks available on the market.These guidebooks or concept literature are often writtenby authors with a long history in environmental manage-ment, often as consultants. A small sample of the con-cept literature has been reviewed with the purpose ofgetting a picture of the author’s views on the EMSelement environmental aspects and to study their rec-ommendations.

There is agreement among the authors that environ-mental aspects are one of the most important elementsin an EMS. Whitelaw (1997) even goes as far as to callit ‘the most important part of the Standard’ [5]. Thereis also agreement that working with environmentalaspects is somewhat confusing for organizations and thatit is one of the most problematic parts of the EMSimplementation. The two most commonly expressedproblem areas are the definition and assessment ofaspects.

Many organizations have difficulty interpreting thedefinition of an environmental aspect in ISO 14001, stat-ing that an environmental aspect is an ‘element of anorganization’s activities, products or services that caninteract with the environment’ [2,6,15,16]. An aspect isoften confused with the activity connected to the aspect.According to Woodside and Aurrichio (1998), it is hardto get agreement as to what constitutes an aspect vs. anactivity; thus they conclude that there is no right orwrong way to define it [16]. Brorson and Larsson (1999)take a somewhat different approach. They divide a spe-cific environmental aspect into several ‘circumstances’,where ‘circumstances’ includes activities, operations,products and services that can cause environmentalimpact [17]. For most authors, an environmental aspectis connected to a direct environmental impact. Thuning(1999) has a somewhat different view. He dividesaspects into those originating from the production sys-tem (direct aspects) and those originating from the man-agement system (indirect aspects) [18]. According to

17T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

Thuning, examples of indirect aspects might includecompetence, demands on suppliers or environmentalcomplaints. The terms ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ aspects arerecognized from EMAS II, but they have a differentmeaning in the regulation [14]. In EMAS II, the meaningof the terms is connected to the degree at which anorganization can control the aspects.

Most authors suggest that the identification of aspectsshould be done in an environmental review, but they alsostress the importance that organizations should not seethe identification of aspects as a one-occasion process.However, advice on how, and how often an update ofthe aspects should be done is rare. Focus lies on theinitial identification, for which the advice in the literatureis much more extensive. Some authors, for exampleTibor and Feldman (1996) and Schoffman and Tordini(2000), suggest initial identification of aspects associatedwith regulatory and legal requirements, with the motiv-ation that these regulations already reflect the mostimportant environmental aspects [15,19]. However,identifying aspects in areas not regulated is more diffi-cult, and must be dealt with in a different way. Foraspects in non-regulated areas, some authors prefer aprocess-oriented approach, whereby the main processesin an organization are identified as a first step. Whenthis is done, environmental aspects associated with eachmain process can be identified [15,20]. Roberts and Rob-inson (1998) go a step further when they suggest thatthe main processes should first be separated into smallerprocess steps before the environmental aspects for eachof the individual process steps are identified [21]. How-ever, a simpler approach dominates in which authors usethe formulation in ISO 14001 stating that the organiza-tion must establish and maintain procedures to identifythe environmental aspects of its activities, products, andservices as a point of departure [16,19,22]. According tothis suggestion, organizations should consider areas suchas emissions to air, releases to water, waste management,contamination of land, etc., when they identify aspectsdirectly from activities, products or services that mayhave an environmental impact.

The difficulties in the assessment are due to theabsence of any universal measure for comparativeassessment of different environmental impacts [5]. Sinceno universal measures exist, this process is associatedwith a great deal of subjectivity [5]. Subjectivity makesthe outcome of the process, the significant aspects, verydependent on the people conducting the assessment. Avariety of methods are used for the assessment ofaspects, since ISO 14001 leaves the method for estab-lishing significant aspects open for each individualorganization. Woodside et al. (1998) suggest that avail-able assessment methods can be divided into three differ-ent approaches: consideration of selected documentedcriteria without any weighing factors, consideration ofselected documented criteria with weighing factor and

judgement of environmental professionals [16]. Accord-ing to Whitelaw (1997), the most widely used are amethod based on criteria with weighing factors, whererisk assessment is also considered [5]. Risk assessmenthas, in this case, two components: the likelihood of anincident and the gravity of the incident. Most authorssuggest assessment criteria, even if they do not alwayssuggest any direct method. The most commonly sug-gested criteria are:

� The scale of the impact;� The severity of the impact;� The probability of occurrence;� The permanence of impact;� The actual or potential regulatory/legal exposure;� The difficulty of changing the impact;� The concerns of stakeholders.

Authors are clearly divided into two groups: the onesthat only suggest environmental concerns whenassessing the aspects and the ones that also suggest busi-ness concerns. Authors suggesting business concerns areprobably influenced by ISO 14004, in which differentbusiness concerns as well as environmental concerns aresuggested for the aspect assessment [3]. Others, notusing business concerns for the assessment, are probablymore focused on the formulation in ISO 14001, statingthat, “A significant environmental aspect is an environ-mental aspect that has or can have a significant environ-mental impact” [2]. Even though the standard throughthis definition does not actually say, that it is not allowedto take business concerns into the assessment process,the definition makes it possible for readers to interpretthe standard so that only environmental concerns canform the basis for determining which aspect should beregarded as significant environmental aspects. Whitelaw(1997) uses only environmental concerns in the assess-ment, but he also adds two extra factors to the process:if an aspect is associated with legislative requirementsor if there is a lack of information on which to makea satisfactory appraisal, the aspect should automaticallybecome a significant environmental aspect [5].

The focus on different tools and concepts is commonto all books in the review. In other words, the authorsconcentrate on how the identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects should be carried out. The ques-tion of who should do it is most often left open. How-ever, it is fairly obvious that most authors think thatenvironmental aspects are an issue for top managementor a single representative of top management. Schoffmanand Tordini (2000) are the clearest exception [15]. Theystate, “It is important not to assume that upper manage-ment alone can identify an organization’s environmentalaspects”. Instead, they suggest that input from all levelsin an organization and as many functions as possibleis important to adequately identifying aspects. Whitelaw

18 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

(1997) agrees with Schoffman and Tordini when hestates that individuals that have been employed for manyyears should participate in the identification process,since they have collected a wealth of useful knowledgeover the years [5]. Both Schoffman and Tordini andWhitelaw suggest the use of questionnaires [5,15].

The information on who should perform the environ-mental aspect assessment is even scarcer than for theidentification. Woodside et al. (1998) are the onlyauthors in the review mentioning the performers of theassessment. They suggest that the determination of sig-nificant aspects should be based on the judgement of theEnvironmental Operations Officer and the Environmen-tal Coordinators, with advice from other professionals,as needed [16].

5. Environmental aspects in the case organizations

5.1. Definition of environmental aspect

In the review of the concept literature, several authorsstate that many organizations have difficulty defining‘environmental aspect’. This was also found to be trueamong the case organizations. In fact, almost everyorganization seems to have its own special definition.The definition in ISO 14001 is sometimes used ininternal documents, but it is often obvious that theorganization has not understood the meaning of thedefinition in the standard.

The most common way of defining environmentalaspect is to relate it to production activities. Organiza-tion m is a typical example of this (See Fig. 2a). Here,the aspects are a result of one or several aggregatedactivities. Other organizations, for example Organizatione, prefer to see their aspects as activities (See Fig. 2b).A combination of these two examples also exists.

Woodside et al. (1998) conclude that, since it is hardto get agreement as to what constitutes an aspect vs. anactivity, there is no right or wrong way to define it [16].Many of the case organizations seem to agree withWoodside et al., and they do not even try to establish adefinition of their own. It is therefore hard for an externalviewer to see what the actual aspects are. Organizationgg’s register of environmental aspects is a good exampleof this phenomenon (See Fig. 2c). Organization gg’sway of treating environmental aspects shows similaritiesto the way suggested by Brorson and Larsson (1999), inwhich aspects are divided into several ‘circumstances’that can cause environmental impact [17]. A similarapproach is taken by Organization x. In their register,an aspect includes a complete description of a situationor problem with possible environmental impact. Anotherorganization that avoids defining environmental aspectsis Organization g. Their solution to document theiraspects is illustrated in Fig. 2d. Organization g has man-

aged not to define environmental aspect, but stillincludes everything according to the definition in ISO14001. An environmental aspect can in this case be anoperation, a product/service, or emissions, wastes andresource depletion.

Most organizations only identify production-orientedaspects, but some exceptions exist. Organization b, t,and u do not divide their aspects into direct or indirectaspects as does Thuning (1999), but they have identifiedsome aspects that could be regarded as indirect [18].Examples of such aspects are information and advice,portion environmentally related issues in training ses-sions, number of research projects containing environ-mentally related issues, language problems betweenforeign truck drivers and personnel at the goods officeand out-of-date environmental instructions. These kindsof indirect environmental aspects are more often foundin smaller or service-oriented organizations than inindustrial companies. Many of the industrial companiesseem to be stuck in an old definition of aspect that orig-inated at a time when the focus was only on complianceand control. It seems as if the smaller firms actually havean advantage in that they are not used to working closelywith the authorities and it is easier for them to under-stand the wider definition of environmental aspect withinthe EMS.

5.2. Identification of environmental aspects

5.2.1. Initial identification and updateThe environmental aspects are often initially identified

in an environmental review. When the aspects are ident-ified in the initial review, they are closely connected tothe review. In some cases, the aspects are only docu-mented within the initial review document and nowhereelse in the EMS. This may be a sign that the identifi-cation is seen as a one-occasion process. An extract fromOrganization t’s procedure regarding environmentalaspects illustrates this.

Identification of environmental aspects: An initialenvironmental review has been carried out, in whichOrganization t’s activities with impact on the environ-ment were identified. The relevant register of environ-mental aspects is placed in document X.

If an external consultant does the initial review, it iseven more likely that the aspects will not be updated inthe near future, since important experience is lost to theorganization when the consultant leaves the organiza-tion. However, most organizations have established aseparate register for the aspects. Often, they also have adocumented procedure for the identification process,even though these procedures tend to be mostly focusedon the assessment of aspects. These procedures almostalways contain a statement that the organization’s

19T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

Fig. 2. (a) Example from Organization m’s register of environmental aspects. An environmental aspect is a result of one or several aggregatedproduction activities. (b) Example from Organization e’s register of environmental aspects. An environmental aspect is equal to an activity. (c)Example from Organization gg’s register of environmental aspects. An environmental aspect is a circumstance, which can have environmentalimpact. (d) Example from Organization g’s register of environmental aspects. Environmental aspect is not clearly defined. It can be an operation,a product/service or emissions, wastes and resource depletion.

environmental aspects are continually updated, but it isseldom stated how this update is organized. This findingcorresponds well to the content in the concept literature,which seldom states how the aspects should be updated.

Four different occasions are identified in the caseorganizations as opportunity or need for an up-date ofthe register for environmental aspects:

� Changes or new projects inside the organization:– Processes/methods,– Buildings and production equipment,– Chemicals/ raw materials,– Products,– Transports.� External changes affecting the organization:– Laws, regulations and other demands,– New findings in environmentally related research,– Supplier’s environmental impact.� Internal and third-party environmental audits;� Fixed occasions (e.g. before management review).

Generally, larger organizations tend to be better atdocumenting their process for updating aspects than

smaller ones. Most larger organizations have speciallydocumented procedures for environmental control andup-date of environmental aspects in new projects. Theseprocedures often contain some kind of checklist to beused by the project leader or the person responsible forenvironmental issues in the project. Often, the expertiseof the environmental manager is also brought to bear insuch projects. However, only a few of the case organiza-tions have a detailed procedure describing the processof identification of environmental aspects. This is rathersurprising, considering that most organizations have alarge number of detailed procedures covering everythingfrom waste management to instruction for the manage-ment review.

Smaller organizations usually update their aspectsonce a year, usually before an annual managementreview. The update does not follow specification in anyprocedure and the method used is often some sort ofbrainstorming among the members of the executive com-mittee or the environmental council. Even if largerorganizations have procedures for continual update ofaspects, it seems as if most changes do not affect theenvironmental aspects. Only 18% of the case organiza-

20 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

tions in the county of Jonkoping and 13% of the caseorganizations in the counties of Norrbotten and Vaster-botten claim to change their register of aspects more thanonce a year. Once a year is the dominating interval forupdate (73% for Jonkoping and 87% forNorrbotten/Vasterbotten).

When the organizations initially identify and updatetheir environmental aspects, they use a number of differ-ent sources to get information (see Table 2). Table 2shows that the most common information sources orinformation gathering techniques are direct measure-ment, external audits or reviews, regulatory environmen-tal reporting, purchasing documents and interviews andobservations. The organizations in the two geographicalareas seem to use the same type of information sourcesor information gathering techniques to the same extent,with two exceptions: external audits or reviews andinterviews and observations. The organizations inNorrbotten and Vasterbotten do not use external help tothe same extent as the organizations in Jonkoping. Thismight be explained by the fact that the environmentalconsultancy firms in the north have not yet developedservices in the EMS area as they have in the south. Theorganizations in Norrbotten and Vasterbotten useemployee interviews more often than organizations inJonkoping and therefore, also involve their employeesin the identification process more often. An explanationfor this has not been found.

5.2.2. Organization and structureWhen an organization identifies its environmental

aspects, it has to organize and structure them in some

Table 2Sources for identification of environmental aspects used by the caseorganizations. The areas originate from 21 organizations from Jonkop-ing and 16 organizations from Norrbotten and Vasterbotten

Sources Jonkoping Norrb./(%) Vasterb. (%)

Direct measurements 86 88External audits or reviews 67 31Regulatory environmental reporting 62 44Purchasing documents 57 56Inventory and production reports 43 31Suppliers and contractors 38 31Customers, consumers and other 38 38stakeholdersInterviews and observations 33 69Scientific studies 24 13Branch organizations 14 19Government authorities, academic 14 13institutions, and NGOsDocumentation from training 14 6Other sourcesa 24 19

a Includes internal environmental audits or reviews, information onchemical products, information from group level, other organizationswithin the group, standards and financial information.

way. The method differs greatly among the case organi-zations. The two most common ways to structure theaspects are the process-oriented approach, suggested bySayre (1996), Schoffman and Tordini (2000) and Rob-erts and Robinson (1998), and a structure based on dif-ferent environmental areas [15,20,21]. Organization g isa good example of an organization using a process-ori-ented approach, even if they sometimes express a pro-cess as equipment or a department. Some examples ofprocesses in Organization g, in which environmentalaspects are divided, are administrative work, wastewatersystem, bleaching, construction, central workshop,department of chlorine-dioxide and contractors. Organi-zation l is typical for an organization with an environ-mental area approach. Some of the areas in their registerof environmental aspects are consumption and handlingof chemicals, consumption and handling of productionmaterials, consumption of energy and use of transports.

Three other major approaches to structuring environ-mental aspects have been found among the case organi-zations; no classification at all, classification by func-tions or departments, and classification by environmentalareas according to Brorson and Larsson (1998) [17]. Themore ambitious aspect identification and structureapproaches among the case organizations occur moreoften in larger industrial companies than in smaller orservice-oriented organizations. Organization a is a goodexample of a larger industrial company with a very seri-ous and ambitious approach. In Organization a, theenvironmental aspect identification is based on mass-and energy balances for all main processes and individ-ual process steps. The processes and process steps are,in turn, classified according to the process owners, whichin this case are different organization functions. Organi-zation a has also succeeded in quantifying most of itsenvironmental aspects, which is another problematicarea for most organizations. It seems as if most organiza-tions make it a priority to identify as many aspects aspossible, instead of using resources and time to quantifythe ones already identified. Even if Organization a andsome of the other case organizations are good at quan-tifying their aspects, they are worse at stating their orig-inal sources of information and information of data qual-ity. Lack of information about original sources and dataquality affect the transparency of the identification pro-cess and make it hard for people not directly involvedin the process to understand it [4].

5.2.3. AggregationAnother area, where the case organizations differ gre-

atly is the aggregation of environmental aspects. Forexample, in some organizations, all non-hazardouswastes are aggregated and later assessed as one singleenvironmental aspect, whereas in other organizations, allindividual types of non-hazardous waste such as paper,plastic, organic matter, etc. are assessed as separate

21T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

aspects. Another aggregation choice an organization hasto make is whether to assess aspects directly connectedto every individual function or process or to add upaspects and assess the aspects on the organizationallevel. The latter is the most frequent choice among thecase organizations, but it is obvious that the aspectaggregation issue is problematic for the organizations.Owing to the different levels of aggregation in the caseorganizations, the total numbers of environmentalaspects differ greatly among the case organizations.Organization gg, for example, has only eight environ-mental aspects while Organization g has a total numberof 286. The quality and environmental manager inOrganization jj states that they initially chose a relativelyambitious approach with no aggregation of aspects at all,resulting in a very difficult assessment process.

5.2.4. Employee participationThe different aspect identification approaches chosen

by the case organizations require different internalenvironmental networks. Usually, smaller organizationsdo not have internal environmental networks; instead,the environmental manager does much of the workhim/herself, often with informal or formal support fromemployees throughout the organization. A frequentlyused method for identification of aspects in smallerorganizations is brainstorming sessions involving thewhole or parts of the executive committee. Largerorganizations, on the other hand, often establish somekind of environmental network to spread the responsi-bility for the aspect identification process. Usually, theheads of each department are esponsible for identifyingaspects connected to their departments, or they appointsomeone else within the department for this task. Insome cases; however, environmental managers assumethe entire responsibility and do all the work themselves.It might be a disadvantage to keep the identification asa top management issue, mainly because the process pro-vides an excellent opportunity for increasing theenvironmental awareness and competence amongemployees and middle managers.

Employee awareness and commitment to environmen-tal issues is often mentioned in the literature as animportant factor for EMS success [3,17,23]. Anincreased level of commitment to and awareness ofenvironmental issues could be reached throughemployee involvement in any part of the EMS, but itwould probably be better to involve employees in thepolicy deployment process as soon as possible, in theprocess of identification and assessment of aspects [24].

Figs. 3a and 3b illustrate the fraction of employeesinvolved in the identification process in relation to thesize of the company. A simple regression analysis showsthat there is a statistically significant relationshipbetween the percentage of employees involved in theidentification process and the size of the organization at

Fig. 3. (a) Relation between percentage involved employees in theidentification process and organization size for Norrbotten and Vaster-botten. The graph data originate from 14 organizations fromNorrbotten and Vasterbotten. (b) Relation between percentageinvolved employees in the identification process and organization sizefor Jonkoping. The graph data originate from 19 organizations fromJonkoping.

the 95% confidence level. The correlation coefficientsare �0.53 and �0.49 for the counties ofNorrbotten/Vasterbotten and Jonkoping, respectively.The magnitude of the correlation coefficients indicatesa moderately strong relationship between the variables.Figs. 3a and 3b show that smaller organizations aresomewhat better then larger ones at involving employeesin the identification process.

5.3. Assessment of environmental aspects

The assessment of environmental aspects is oftenregarded as part of the same process as the identification,and a new assessment is often done right after an updateof the register of aspects. Some organizations do, how-ever, separate the two, probably because the assessmentprocess is more complicated and the assessors need ahigher level of competence than the people involved inthe identification. As with the identification, once a yearis the dominating interval for reassessment of the aspects(86% of the case organizations in Jonkoping and 80% ofthe case organizations in Norrbotten/Vasterbotten). Not

22 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

surprisingly, many of the environmental mangers in thecase organizations state that the initial assessment washard and confusing, but as they got better at workingwith their assessment model, it got much easier.

5.3.1. Methods and tools for assessmentISO 14001 and EMAS do not make any suggestions

as to how the environmental aspects should be assessed,only that the organization has to consider its significantaspects when establishing its environmental objectivesand targets [2]. The form of the assessment is thereforeup to every organization wanting to be certified or regis-tered [4].

Since every organization can construct its own assess-ment method, the methods differ widely. Of all the caseorganizations studied, no two organizations used theexact same method. However, similarities between themethods existed, and it is possible to classify them inthe following categories:

1. No tool, but documented assessment criteria;2. Tool with several assessment criteria. Each criterion

is assigned a value from a scale and the total sumis calculated;

3. Tool with several assessment criteria. Each criterionis assigned a value from a scale, and the numbersare multiplied;

4. Tool with several assessment criteria, but with differ-ent criteria depending on the type of environmentalaspect;

5. Tool for traditional risk assessment;6. Assessment based on LCA-data.

One of the more common forms of assessment is todocument assessment criteria in a procedure and thenby some sort of brainstorming process rank the aspects.Sometimes, the aspects are assigned a significance value.This assessment type is done either by the environmentalmanager alone, or more often by a small group includingmembers of the executive committee.

The most common tool for assessment is a matrixmodel with a number of assessment criteria. For everyaspect, each criterion is assigned a value from a scaleand the total sum is calculated. The aspects with thehighest sum become the significant environmentalaspects. A variation on this approach is to multiply thenumbers for each criterion. The assessment criteria usedby the case organizations are shown in Table 3. It shouldbe noted that the assessment criteria in Table 3 are alsofrom organizations that do not use a matrix type ofassessment tool. The majority of the organizations usingthis type of tool have a preset quantified limit, which anaspect has to exceed to be considered significant. Someorganizations also have a special element in their toolstating that aspects associated to regulatory specifi-cations should always be considered significant. A preset

quantified limit will, at least theoretically, mean that thetotal number of significant aspects can differ from yearto year, and if the limit is not continually changed, thenumber of significant aspects will decrease. Someorganizations have solved this problem by not settingany limit, but instead state that a certain number of thehighest ranks aspects will be established as significantaspects.

The popularity of the matrix approach can probablybe explained by the fact that it is often recommendedby consultants and suggested by authors in the conceptliterature. Another reason might be expectations fromthird-party auditors. The environmental manager inOrganization z states that he would not dare not to usesome kind of quantifiable assessment tool, since thiswould be difficult to justify for a third-party auditor.However, the environmental manager in Organization zis satisfied with the tool and feels that it is a big helpin the assessment process.

Some of the other environmental managers are not soconvinced of the usefulness of a quantifiable assessmenttool. They feel that they could probably get the sameresults from just using their experience, competence andthe register of environmental aspects. In other words,they could get the same result by using an approachsimilar to the first method in the classification list above.But in spite of their doubtfulness about the efficiency oftheir assessment tools, they feel that the tool is usefulas a historic description of the assessment process andthe thoughts and discussions associated with that pro-cess. The environmental managers have independentlyreached the same conclusion as Ken Whitelaw, whostates, ‘it is important to remember that the scoring sys-tem is not absolute — it is merely a means for theorganization to make sense of a very complex set ofenvironmental concepts and interactions’ [5].

The two last assessment methods were only used byone organization each. The assessment based on LCAdata was not really a tool. The company had performedan LCA for one of its products, and from the conclusionsdrawn from this study, the significant aspects were estab-lished. Risk assessment is often recommended in theconcept literature so it is somewhat surprising that it isnot more common in the case organizations. In this case,assigned numbers for the criteria frequency and conse-quence are multiplied to get a risk factor. The aspectswith the highest risk factor are then established as sig-nificant aspects.

5.3.2. Environmental and business considerationsA significant environmental aspect is, according to

ISO 14001, “an environmental aspect that has or canhave a significant environmental impact” [2]. This defi-nition can be interpreted in a way that the only criterionthat should be taken into consideration when assessingthe environmental aspects is how and to what extent the

23T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

Table 3Assessment criteria used by the case organizations. The areas originate from 23 organizations from Jonkoping and 17 organizations from Norrbottenand Vasterbotten

Assessment criteria Jonkoping (%) Norrbotten/Vasterbotten (%)

Quantities 96 82Extent of the environmental impact 96 59Seriousness of the environmental impact 78 88Public and neighbour attitudes 74 29Regulatory. environmental permit 70 47Consequences of not fulfilling laws and regulations 65 47Technical or organizational problems 61 24Employees attitude and suggestions from employees 57 47Probability of environmental impact 52 71Cost for environmental impact change 52 41Customer attitude 52 29Permanence of impact or damage 35 53Conflicts with other activities and processes 30 12Other factorsa 39 59

a Includes effects on human health, Swedish national environmental targets, Swedish EPA’s environmental threats, emissions to air, emissionsto water, contamination of land, recipient sensitivity, waste and emission treatment, risk for emergency, image creating measures, group levelenvironmental objectives and use of finite resources.

aspects affect the environment. Other criteria such astechnological options and financial, operational and busi-ness requirements, and the views of interested partiesshould be subsequently taken into consideration whenenvironmental objectives are established [2]. ISO 14004,on the other hand, suggests that both environmental andbusiness concerns could be considered when evaluatingthe impacts associated with the aspects [3]. The formu-lations in the two standards give incitements to con-fusion as to whether business considerations should betaken into account in the assessment process. Confusionregarding the assessment process is also found amongthe case organizations. Some organizations have a purelyenvironment-focused assessment process, but most ofthe case organizations also take business considerationsinto account, which Table 3 indicates.

Organization cc is one of the organizations thatinclude business considerations in their assessment tool.The third-party auditors have earlier accepted the tool,but during the last third-party audit, Organization cc’senvironmental manager got the message from the audi-tors that they had to change it and exclude business con-sideration. Other organizations have received similarmessages from their third-party auditors. It seems as ifsome auditors or audit firms have changed their demandson the assessment process to better fit the definition ofa significant environmental aspect in ISO 14001. Thisproposition corresponds well with findings made byAmmenberg et al. (2001) [25]. They interviewed 13 rep-resentatives from all nine certification bodies active inSweden and a representative from Sweden’saccreditation body, SWEDAC, about which criteria toinclude in the assessment of environmental aspects. 62%of the auditors approved environmentally related criteria

only, and the rest, 38%, approved also business relatedcriteria. It should also be noted that two auditors fromthe same certification body had different opinions on theuse of business related criteria and that SWEDAC’s rep-resentative stated that environmentally related criteriaonly should be approved.

In an attempt to establish significant aspects purelyfrom an environmental point of view but still consideringbusiness considerations, two of the case organizations,Organization t and Organization dd have constructed athree-step assessment method. First aspects are valuatedagainst environmental criteria (e.g. quantities, extent ofthe impact, probability of impact, etc.) and significantaspects according to the definition in ISO 14001 areestablished. Secondly, all aspects, not only the signifi-cant ones, are valuated against external driving forces(e.g. customer demands, national environmental targets,media, etc.). In the last step, the aspects are valuatedagainst internal driving forces (e.g. employee sugges-tions, costs, technical possibilities, etc.). The result afterall three steps is a number of prioritised environmentalaspects. It is important to note here that an organizationusing this approach gets different categories of signifi-cant aspects. Brorson and Larsson (1999) suggest thiskind of approach, and according to their model, a sig-nificant aspect could have low, medium or high priority[17]. It is the significant aspects with the highest prioritythat are first taken into account when establishingenvironmental objectives. A risk with this kind ofapproach is that some significant environmental aspectsmight not be considered priorities. However, this has nothappened in either Organization t or Organization dd.

It might be argued that it does not matter if businesscriteria are considered before or after the establishment

24 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

of significant environmental aspects, since business cri-teria still have to be taken into account before the estab-lishment of environmental objectives. But it is importantto show stakeholders that the organization is aware ofits significant environmental impacts. Even if the organi-zation does not have the possibility to establish objec-tives for all aspects with a significant impact, the organi-zation must document its intensions to reduce the impactassociated with the aspects not included in the objectivesat a later date. The awareness of significant environmen-tal impact is a condition for making the EMS, the man-agement, and the whole organization credible in the eyesof stakeholders as customers, the public, media, neigh-bours and other interested parties [4].

5.3.3. Employee participationSince most organizations see the identification and

assessment of environmental aspects as one process, theyusually also use the same internal organizational networkfor the assessment as for the identification. However,some of the organizations tend to make the assessmentmore of a management issue. Top management is sel-dom involved early in the assessment process, but thesignificant environmental aspects are often established inthe executive committee. The environmental managersin the case organizations state that the members of theexecutive committee hardly even change the suggestionsfor significant aspects. Instead, they tend to focus moreon the goal-setting process following the assessment.

The environmental managers who work together withassessment groups rather than doing the assessmentthemselves feel that this is working well. Some of theseenvironmental managers state that they feel that theyhave not really sufficiently experienced or qualified tomake the assessment on their own. A statement of thiskind is understandable, since only a few of the environ-mental managers have a university degree in an corpor-ate environmental management related field or experi-ence of environmental work. Not surprisingly, these fewmanagers are found in larger industrial organizationscontrolled by regulatory specifications.

When the environmental mangers involve morepeople in the process, they increase and broaden thecompetence and experience and more people can givetheir view of what they feel is important. Since theassessment of environmental aspects is a subjective pro-cess, it is probably a good idea to involve as manypeople in the organization as practically possible.

A regression analysis for the assessment process thatis similar to the analysis for the identification processshows that there is no statistically significant relationshipbetween the percentage of employees involved in theassessment process and the size of the organization atthe 90% confidence level. The correlation coefficientsare �0.37 and �.13 for Norrbotten/Vasterbotten andJonkoping, respectively, indicating a relatively weak

relationship between the variables. For the assessmentprocess, the size of the organization does not seem toaffect the degree of employee involvement.

5.4. Communication of environmental aspects

To see if employees, management and stakeholdersget the opportunity to react to the choice of significantenvironmental aspects, the communication of significantaspects was examined in the case organizations. Table4 shows an overview of this communication. Most ofthe case organizations inform their employees of the sig-nificant environmental aspects. It is interesting to notethat only 65% of the organizations in theNorrbotten/Vasterbotten area communicate their aspectsto the employees. The number is greater for Jonkoping.The difference is not easy to explain and is probably dueto chance, since the populations are rather small.

The most common way to communicate aspects is viabulletin boards. This information is usually followed byverbal information at department meetings and organiza-tion-wide meetings. In most organizations, employeestherefore, have the opportunity to discuss the choice ofaspects with the informer. The informer is usually thedepartment manager, or in some cases the environmentalmanager. Almost all organizations use more than oneway of communicating, which does increase awarenessamong employees.

With few exceptions, significant aspects are alwayscommunicated to management. Management is usuallyinformed verbally at regular meetings and during themanagement review. This comes as no surprise, sinceolder aspects are often reviewed at the managementreview. At the same time, it is appropriate to look atsuggestions for new aspects and goals.

None of the case organizations work together withstakeholders when they establish their significantaspects, but approximately six out of ten of the caseorganizations state that they include stakeholder attitudesin their aspect assessment process. The methods usedto identify stakeholder attitudes are shown in Table 5.Approximately seven out of ten of the case organizationsinform stakeholders of the established significantaspects. Organizations with an EMAS registration usetheir annual environmental report in external communi-cations. ISO 14001 organizations do not have to com-municate externally, according to the specifications inISO 14001, but they usually do anyway, either providinginformation voluntarily, through an environmentalreport, a financial report, via a website, an informationleaflet, personal contacts, etc., or upon request.

6. Conclusions

The authors of the concept literature within the EMSarea warn their readers that the process of identification

25T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

Table 4Communication of significant environmental aspects to employees, management and stakeholders. The results originate from 23 organizations fromJonkoping and 17 organizations from Norrbotten and Vasterbotten

Communication to employees Communication to management Communication to stakeholdersJonkoping Norr./Vaster. Jonkoping Norr./Vaster. Jonkoping Norr./Vaster.(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Communicated 91 65 Communicated 96 88 Communicated 74 71Not communicated 4 35 Not communicated 4 12 Not communicated 17 29Do not know 4 0 Do not know 9 0

Management review 86 40Bulletin boards 71 64 Verbally on 59 40 Environmental 35 58Verbally on 62 64 management meetings annual reportdepartment meetings Records from 36 27 Information given 24 17Intranet 19 46 meetings when asked forOrganization wide 24 36 Environmental annual 23 20 Financial annual 24 17meetings report reportRecords from 19 36 Intranet 14 27 Internet 18 17meetings Regulatory 18 13 Information leaflet 12 17Environmental annual 24 9 environmental report Personal contact 12 0report Management 5 13 Otherc 12 17

participationInternal magazine 19 9Otherb 23 7Othera 10 9

a Includes environmental training programs, environmental handbook, employee participation and separate document for goals.b Includes financial annual report, internal magazine and environmental handbook.c Includes visits, exhibitions, open house, publications and meetings with neighbours.

Table 5Methods used by the case organizations for identification of stakeholder attitudes. The data originate from 21 organizations from Jonkoping and16 organizations from Norrbotten and Vasterbotten

Methods Jonkoping (%) Norrbotten/Vasterbotten(%)

Stakeholder attitudes included 61 59Stakeholder attitudes not included 39 41

Coverage of laws and regulations 64 70Direct communication with neighbours, authorities, and customers 57 70Information from media and other sources of publication 57 50Suggestions from employees 43 50Meetings 29 30Questionnaires 14 10Participation in interest groups connected to industry and the public 14 10Reviews of public reports, internal programs, and initiatives from stakeholders 7 10Optional standards 7 10Exchange of electronic information 7 10Other methodsa 21 30

a Includes market analysis, interviews, demands from customers, employee participation, meetings connected to environmental impact assessmentand intranet.

and assessment of environmental aspects is associatedwith difficulties and confusion. The findings in the caseorganizations strengthen these conclusions. Siximportant areas where the identification and assessmentprocess can be improved are identified: the definition ofenvironmental aspects, the procedures for update ofaspects, the aggregation of aspects, the exclusion of busi-ness considerations in the assessment, employee and

stakeholder participation, and the competence levels ofpeople involved in the process.

The first difficulty arises even before the identificationand assessment process can begin, in the definition ofan environmental aspect. The definition in ISO 14001seems to create more confusion than it really helps. Thewisest thing to do is probably to follow the advice ofWoodside et al. (1998) and not focus so much on finding

26 T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

the ‘right’ definition, but instead go after what feels rightfor the organization [16].

Most of the case organizations have done a good jobin identifying environmental aspects in the initialenvironmental review preceding the implementation ofthe EMS, but the process is seen as too much of a one-occasion process. If the environmental aspects are to becontinually updated, as they should be, the proceduremust be clearly understood and documented.

The degree of aggregation of aspects depends on whatdefinition of environmental aspect the organizationchose to use and the size of the organization. How anorganization chose to aggregate its aspects is importantfor making the assessment controllable and effective. Itis impossible to generally say how many aspects areright for an organization for the assessment process tobe effective, but the number of aspect must not be sogreat that they cannot be compared with each other.Larger organizations should avoid aggregating aspects toan organization level. It is better if the department man-agers or process owners are responsible for identifyingand assessing the aspects connected to activities undertheir control, in order to give incitements for increasedenvironmental awareness and competence.

It has been indicated by many of the environmentalmanagers in the case organizations that they need moretraining and experience in the environmental area tomake a qualified identification and assessment of aspectsand to develop the EMS. Of course, this can be achievedthrough training and help from external consultants, butincreased involvement by employees throughout thewhole organization will increase the competence leveland enhance the possibility for environmentally sounddecisions.

The competence regarding business criteria in theassessment process is greater than environmental criteriain most organizations. Tough market conditions togetherwith available internal competence mean that it is onlynatural for organizations to want to include business cri-teria in the assessment process. However, organizationswith an EMS should be careful about how they assesstheir aspects. The major aim of an EMS is continualenvironmental improvements, and many stakeholdersstart to question the results of EMSs and what theorganizations really mean by their significant environ-mental aspects. The most credible way for an organiza-tion to define its significant environmental aspects isprobably to exclude all business criteria at this point.Most stakeholders will understand that an organizationis not working with all its significant aspects directly,but they will criticize an organization that slips in busi-ness criteria where they do not belong.

Finally, none of the case organizations let any stake-holders take part in the assessment process. This comesas no surprise, but organizations should not rule out thepossibility of working together with representatives of

neighbouring companies/parties, NGOs or customers. Byinviting these stakeholders, an organization can improveits environmental image at the same time as valuablecompetence is added to the assessment process.

References

[1] Environmentally certified companies. URL:http://www.environ-cert.com. September 9, 2002.

[2] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14001: Environmentalmanagement systems - Specification with guidance for use.ISO, 1996.

[3] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14004: Environmentalmanagement systems - General guidelines on principles, systemsand supporting techniques. ISO, 1996.

[4] Zobel T, Almroth C, Bresky J, Burman J-O. Identification andassessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: Anapproach to a new reproducible method based on LCA-method-ology. Journal of Cleaner Production 2002;10(4):381–96.

[5] Whitelaw K. ISO 14001 Environmental system handbook.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997.

[6] Cascio J, Woodside G, Mitchell P. ISO 14000 guide - The newinternational environmental management standards. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1996.

[7] Miljoledningsarkivet. URL: http://www.miljostyrning.se/miljoledningsarkivet.asp. November 30, 1999.

[8] ISO-Fakta Norden. URL: http://www.isofakta.com. November30 1999.

[9] Jensen MK. Kvalitativa metoder for samhalls- och beteendevet-are. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1995.

[10] Yin RK. Case study research; Design and methods. ThousandOaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc, 1994.

[11] Denzin NK. Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Chicago: Ald-ine Publishing Company, 1970.

[12] Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, Lon-don: SAGE Publications, 1988.

[13] EEC. Council-Regulation (EEC) No. 1836/93 of June 1993allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrialsector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme,EMAS-Regulation. Brussels: EEC, 1993.

[14] EC. Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European parliamentand of the council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary partici-pation by organisations in the Community eco-management andaudit scheme. Brussels: EC, 2001.

[15] Schoffman A, Tordini A. ISO 14001: A practical approach. NewYork: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2000.

[16] Woodside G, Aurrichio P, Yturri J. ISO 14001 implementationmanual. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

[17] Brorson T, Larsson G. Environmental management. Stockholm:EMS, 1999.

[18] Thuning G. Aktivera ISO 14001 – Fran tanke till handling. Lund:Studentlitteratur, 1999.

[19] Tibor T, Feldman I. ISO 14000 A guide to the new environmentalmanagement standard. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing,1996.

[20] Sayre D. Inside ISO 14000: The competitive advantage ofenvironmental management. Delray Beach, Florida: St. LuciePress, 1996.

[21] Roberts H, Robinson G. ISO 14001 EMS implementation hand-book. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1998.

[22] Johnson P. ISO 14000 - The business manager’s complete guideto environmental management. New York: John Wiley & Sons,Inc, 1997.

[23] Welford R. Corporate environmental management: Culture andorganisations. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 1997.

27T. Zobel, J.-O. Burman / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 13–27

[24] Zobel T, Burman J-O. Environmental policy deployment. Journalof Cleaner Production, submitted.

[25] Ammenberg J, Wik G, Hjelm O. Auditing external environmental

auditors - Investigating how ISO 14001 is interpreted and appliedin reality. Eco-Management and Auditing 2001;8(4):183–92.

Paper III

Characterisation of environmental policy implementation in an EMS context: a multiple-case study in Sweden

Zobel, T. (2005)

Submitted for publication

Characterisation of environmental policy implementation in an EMS context: a multiple-case study in Sweden

Thomas Zobel*

Division of Quality & Environmental Management, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden

AbstractThe heart of an environmental management system is the implementation of environmental policy in an organisation by the use of environmental aspects, goals and management programmes. The aim of this paper isto characterise this implementation and discuss how it could be improved. In order to reach the aim of the papera multiple-case study was performed in ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered organisations in Sweden. It isconcluded that the implementation of environmental policy is strictly controlled by specifications in ISO 14001or EMAS. Some organisations, mostly smaller, are forced to form their environmental policy implementation ina way that is not suited for their type of organisation. Many organisations find it hard to measure theirenvironmental goals and to set long-term or medium-long-term time periods for their goals. In addition, the organisations do not involve their employees to a very great extent in the implementation of the environmentalpolicy. If they do let middle managers and line personnel participate, it is usually early in the process, as early as in the identification of environmental aspects.

Keywords: Environmental management systems (EMS), management by objectives (MBO), environmentalpolicy implementation, environmental goals, environmental aspects

1. Introduction

Compliance is no longer the only driver for working with corporate environmental issues. The market itself has become an important driver for corporate environmental improvement[1]. Environmental issues entail not only costs, but savings and new market possibilities aswell. To be able to work with environmental issues in a market driven way, companies needsome kind of environmental management tool. In many cases environmental managementsystem (EMS) according to the international standard ISO 14001 is the preferred tool.

1.1. Environmental management system

The implementation of an ISO 14001 based EMS usually starts with an initial review of the present situation. The review includes an inventory of all environmental aspects, relevant laws and regulations and existing environmental procedures. The initial review forms the basis for the environmental policy, environmental objectives and targets and environmentalmanagement programmes. The system is then built upon documented procedures and instructions controlling activities related to the most significant environmental impact. Whenthe system is implemented, system audits are conducted to determine the efficiency of the system and the top management carries out a management review to check the system and improvements.

EMS as a tool for improving organisational environmental performance has been used since the mid 1990-ties and its use, mostly in the shape of ISO 14001 or EMAS, increases for every year. Even though ISO 14001 has only been in use for about a decade, approximately74 000 organisations in 130 different countries have been certified according to the standard

* Tel.: +46 (0)920 492134; mob.: +46 (0)70 3433590; fax: +46 (0)920 492160. E-mail address:thomas.zobel@ltu.se

1

up until October 2004 [2]. Advocates of an international standard for assessing organisational EMS claim substantial benefits for organisations when implementing ISO 14001 [3]. It is often assumed that an EMS will lead to legal compliance, reduce or eliminate negativeenvironmental impacts and move a company toward better environmental performance [3, 4]. Along with the increasing popularity and the talk about positive benefits, critical voices are also heard. The most common criticism is that an ISO 14001-certification does not measurethe actual environmental performance of an organisation [5]. Even if an EMS actually leads to less environmental impact, it is difficult to externally verifying that such improvementsactually occur [3].

1.2. Previous research on environmental management systems

As the popularity of EMS increases and researchers and others argue about the possible benefits of EMS, the need for evaluating the effect of the implemented systems also increases.The need for evaluations has in fact also been identified by researchers in areas of the worldwhere EMS is common. A number of evaluations have been published since the late 1990-ties; see for example Zackrisson et al., MEPI, NDEMS and Wallner et al. [6, 7, 8, 9]. The focus of these evaluations differs somewhat, but most evaluates the effect on environmentalperformance, costs, good-will and organisational efficiency. Along with the increasingnumber of evaluations, meta-studies are also starting to be carried out; see for example Steger,Pecher et al. and Schylander & Zobel [10, 11, 12].

In the review by Steger, mainly German-speaking evaluations of smaller empirical investigations on EMS were evaluated [10]. In his study he assessed the impact an EMS have had on companies with focus on ecological goals and impacts, the economic cost-benefit of EMS, organisation and information. Given the broad range of the available studies, with different research questions and a wide variety of research methods he reports that the use of EMS leads to a more effective organisation flow, a higher degree of legal compliance and a more comprehensive exploitation of the ‘win-win’ potential of ecological and economicalbenefits.

Another meta-study performed by Pecher et al. examined 13 Austrian evaluation studies of EMS [11]. The study focused on ecological effects, economical effects, and image-benefits. They found that some evaluation studies showed positive and strong effect and someother showed limited benefits. Therefore they were not able to draw any general conclusion about environmental effects of EMS implementation. Similar findings about environmentaleffects were found by Schylander & Zobel [12].

To summarise the findings in previous research, it has not been proven, neither from primary evaluations nor from meta-studies, that an EMS enhance the environmentalperformance of an organisation. It seems as if successful EMS implementation depends on anumber of organisational factors such as, for example, drivers for EMS adoption, organisation size, line of business and cultural setting as well as the characteristics of all the different EMS elements.

This study concentrates on the EMS element that more than any other affect the possibility for continual environmental improvement: the implementation of environmental policy. The effect of different organisational factors on the success of EMS implementation will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

1.3. Environmental policy implementation

The definition of an environmental policy and the implementation of this policy within theorganisation is the most central part in an EMS, because this process will determine the shape

2

and focus of the entire EMS. This process is the part of the EMS that hopefully will help an organisation to continually improve its environmental performance. ISO 14001 and its complementary standard ISO 14004 describe the implementation process according to Fig. 1. Before policy implementation, environmental aspects are identified and assessed. The significant aspects form the basis for policy and objectives. These aspects also determinewhich individuals should get additional environmental training and the procedures and instruction that should be documented. The policy is implemented through objectives, targets and management programmes to the whole organisation in order to achieve continuous environmental improvements.

Aspect identification

Aspect assessment

Impact description

Training

Procedures and instructions

Establishment of objectives

Establishment of targets

Establishment of management program

Establishment of environmental performance

indicators

Environmentalperformanceevaluation

Laws and regulations Technological optionsFinancial, operationaland business requirementsConcerns of interestedparties

Definition of policy

Fig. 1. Environmental policy implementation according to ISO 14001 as seen by the author of this paper.

The implementation of environmental policy, as it is outlined in ISO 14001, has its basis inEdwin Locke’s goal-setting theory [13] and the management concept that makes the theoryoperational in organisations, management by objectives (MBO), which was originallyproposed by Peter Drucker [14]. In short, goal-setting theory proposes that specific goals increase performance, that difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher performance than non-feedback [15, 16, 17]. Four ingredients are common to MBO programs: goal specificity, participative decision making, an explicit time period, and performance feedback [18, 19]. The major ingredients in MBO correspond well with goal-setting theory. The only area of disagreement relates to the issue of participation. Participative decision making in strongly advocated by MBO whereas goal-setting demonstrates that assigned goals frequently works just as well. However, according to goal-setting theory, participation has the benefits that it appears to induce individuals to establish more difficult goals and that it increases goal acceptance [20, 21].

3

2. Aim of the study

In order to implement an EMS and certify it according to ISO 14001, an organisation mustgo through all steps in Figure 1, but the standard do not provide any details on how thisshould be done. Every organisation must therefore interpret the specifications in the standard individually. Little is known about this interpretation of environmental policy implementationin an EMS context, and how organisations have dealt with this process.

This paper will contribute with more information about the implementation ofenvironmental policy organisations with an EMS. The aim of the study is to characterise the implementation of environmental policy in organisations that have implemented an EMS.

The research methodology chosen for achieving the aim is described in the next section. After the description of research methodology, the results of the study are presented in Section 4. The findings are outlined for all phases of environmental policy implementation as it is specified in ISO 14001; definition of policy, identification and assessment of aspects and establishment and implementation of goals.

3. Research methodology and empirical base

3.1. Research strategy

Since the aim of the study in this paper is of an exploratory nature, a qualitative research approach is preferable [22]. The empirical base in this study is therefore mostly of qualitative nature. According to Yin, a case study is a suitable research strategy for studies with an exploratory [23]. Since little was known about environmental policy implementation in an EMS context and characteristics were wanted from a variety of organisation types, a multiple-case research design was chosen. The unit of analysis was the implementation ofenvironmental policy. Data were obtained mainly through interviews and studies of documentation in 46 organisations certified according to ISO 140011. During the interviews, a questionnaire was jointly completed by the respondent and the researcher. On-site observations were also used, but mainly to gain an understanding of the nature of theactivities and their environmental aspects. The on-site observations were also used for establishing a good relationship with the respondent. It is necessary for the respondent tocompletely trust the interviewer, since this will facilitate the release of internal documents forlater studies.

In all organisations in which the case study was performed, the environmental managerwas the respondent. The environmental manager is the obvious choice in this case, since theenvironmental manager is usually responsible for implementing the environmental policy. The interviews were carried out as open interviews. This approach is well suited for data collection in situations where the qualitative method is used [22]. Even if the interviews were open, the interviewing process could not be regarded as in-depth interviewing, since the respondents mainly described existing facts about the EMS and the environmental aspects. The environmental managers also got the opportunity to speak freely about how they experienced the implementation of environmental policy. Standardised interview schemeswere used, but the order in which the questions were asked differed somewhat.

All data in the form of notes from interviews and direct observations were first transferredfrom handwritten notes to text files that were in turn transferred into the computer softwareQ.S.R. NUDIST where the data was coded. Internal documents were manually coded and the codes were transferred to the software. After coding, all data were structured into different

1 It should be noted that at the time for this study ISO 14001 had not yet been updated. References in this paperwill therefore be made to the original version that was published in 1996.

4

arrays. Since all organisations had a certified EMS, most arrays were represented by different phases in environmental policy implementation according to the specifications in ISO 14001. Analysis was performed of the data in each array in order to characterise each phase in thepolicy implementation. Patterns were identified as well as unusual practices which were believed to have negative or positive effect on continual environmental improvement.

3.2. Organisations used in the case study

The empirical base in this paper originates from 17 organisations in the counties ofNorrbotten and Västerbotten in the north of Sweden and 29 organisations in Jönköping, in the south2. The data was collected from November 1999 to May 2000. Two geographical areas were chosen to make it possible to analyse geographical differences and thereby increase the possibility to generalise. The organisations were selected according to two major criteria.First, the organisations should have implemented and certified an EMS according to the requirements in ISO 14001 or EMAS by November 1999. Certification was required because it was a simple way of making sure that the organisations had adopted an EMS. Secondly,organisations should be located in Norrbotten, Västerbotten or Jönköping. The study could have been performed in any county in Sweden but these three counties were chosen mostlydue to logistic and other practical reasons.

Two Internet-based registers containing certified organisations in Sweden were original sources [24, 25]. The two criteria were applied to the registers, resulting in a total of 60 relevant organisations. 14 of them were unable to participate, while eight agreed to answer a questionnaire but did not have time to receive a visit. Table 1 summarises the key features of the organisations used in the study. Since most of the organisations wished to be anonymous,they have been renamed after letters in the alphabet.

3.3. Validity and reliability

Yin (1994) claims that the design tests available for qualitative research are construct, internal and external validity and reliability [23]. The construct validity is increased by the use of multiple sources of data. The data for this paper were collected through interviews,literature review, documentation studies and on-site observations, giving the research approach in this paper relatively high construct validity. Internal validity can be ensured using one or more of five different methods: triangulation, member checks, long-term observations, peer examination, and researcher’s biases [26]. A so-called method triangulation approach was used, making it possible to compare different sources with each other [27].

To fulfil the requirements of external validity, it must be possible to apply the findings of the research to other situations. The findings from 46 different organisations have been compared in this paper. The data collected have also been compared to relevant theory.

The steps taken in this paper to increase the reliability is to describe the data collectionprocedures and data analysis. However, it is not possible to achieve full reliability, since theresearch process is largely influenced by the author’s frame of mind.

2 The counties of Västerbotten and Norrbotten are in this paper treated as one geographical area.

5

Table 1 Characteristics of the organisations in this study

Case CodeNACE

Business sector No. ofemp.

Annualturnover106*Euros

EMS basis

Norrbotten/Västerbottena 27 Manufacture of basic metals 350 65.2 ISO 14001 b 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 32 9.0 ISO 14001

60 Land transport/ transport via pipelinesc 14 Other mining and quarrying 50 0.1 ISO 14001

26 Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products d 22 Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media 32 3.9 ISO 14001 e 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except

furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater85 -- ISO 14001/EMAS

f 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 95 2.3 ISO 14001/EMAS36 Manufacture of furniture/ manufacturing n.e.c.

g 21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 470 134.8 ISO 14001/EMAS24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

h 40 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply 102 343.5 EMASi 37 Recycling 90 -- ISO 14001j 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 2200 -- ISO 14001 k 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/

manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater200 -- ISO 14001

l 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 640 81.7 ISO 14001 m 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 58 7.7 ISO 14001

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcyclesJönköping

n 21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 100 12.5 ISO 14001/EMAS25 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products

o 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 250 13.1 ISO 14001 p 36 Manufacture of furniture/manufacturing n.e.c. 250 6.6 ISO 14001 q 27 Manufacture of basic metals 43 10.4 ISO 14001/EMASr 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 170 1.5 ISO 14001

29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.s 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 93 8.6 ISO 14001 t 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 350 96.6 EMASu 33 Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks 120 -- ISO 14001 v 27 Manufacture of basic metals 1500 238.3 ISO 14001

28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment74 Other business activities

w 25 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 400 106.7 ISO 14001 x 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 650 74.6 ISO 14001/EMASy 60 Land transport/ transport via pipelines 175 15.8 ISO 14001

63 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities/ activities of travel agencies z 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 72 -- ISO 14001 aa 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 170 22.4 ISO 14001 bb 63 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities/activities of travel agencies 211 -- ISO 14001 cc 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. 380 68.8 ISO 14001/EMASdd 70 Real estate activities 40 13.7 ISO 14001 ee 51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 12 1.9 ISO 14001 ff 29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 550 -- ISO 14001

28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles

gg 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater

33 11.0 ISO 14001

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycleshh 20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture/

manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting mater70 19.6 ISO 14001

ii 29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 175 15.8 ISO 14001 jj 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 230 21.4 ISO 14001 kk 51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 20 5.4 ISO 14001 ll 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 65 7.0 ISO 14001

4. Results

4.1. Establishment of environmental policy

Since all organisations used in the case study are certified according to ISO 14001 or registered according to EMAS, the nature of the environmental policy will largely depend on

6

the specifications in the standards. This is obvious when the policies are considered. Often, the contents are similar, and it is often hard to see directly from the policy what kind of activities the policy is related to. A policy must contain commitments on continual improvement and prevention of pollution, and it must comply with environmental legislation according to ISO 14001, something all policies therefore have in common. Other factors oftenmentioned are commitment to training of staff, resource and energy efficiency, openness in environmental matters, environmental demands on contractors, minimisation of waste and the use of environmental targets.

4.1.1. Connection between policy, aspects and goals Even though ISO 14001 guides the content of the environmental policy, the standard is

loose on the connection between the policy and the environmental aspects. Most organisations first identify and assess aspects in an initial review before establishing the policy. This would be the most natural way to start the implementation of environmental policy, since it probably would be better to be aware of the significant aspects before establishing the policy. Policies created by this process often also include commitment to more direct improvements such as reduced emissions, increased reuse of waste products and decreased transports. This order of starting the implementation of environmental policy is the most common, but someorganisations have chosen to establish the policy as a first step towards the implementation ofan EMS. In these cases, the policy tends to be more general and does not mention any particular environmental aspects.

In some cases, the connection between the policy and the goals is obvious, since the environmental objectives are mentioned in the policy document. This is more common in small organisations that do not need goals for different levels of the organisation. In these organisations, objectives are merely created to satisfy the standards and are not necessary for the policy implementation.

The policy is mostly just a starting point for the system implementation and the policy is seldom internally communicated. The emphasis is more on the chain containing aspects, objectives, targets and programmes. The environmental policy is in all organisations a stand-alone document that is not integrated with other policies such as quality, security andpersonnel. The establishment of the environmental policy does not seem to affect the content and appearance of these other policies or organisational visions.

4.1.2. Continuous improvement Because continuous improvement is one of the most central concepts in an EMS based on

ISO 14001 or EMAS, an environmental policy must contain commitments on continuous improvement according to the specifications in the standards. However, what should actuallybe improved is not obvious to all organisations. Some of them seem to be somewhat confused, which is illustrated by the following quotations from environmental policies.

“Our environmental work shall be preventive and strive for continuous improvement.”(Organisation g)

“The environmental work is integrated in all activities and is continuously improvedthrough review of our environmental goals.” (Organisation d)

“Legislation and environmental customer demands are the basis for the environmentalwork. In addition we shall strive to make continuous improvements.” (Organisation c)

7

Most organisations do however relate their continuous improvements directly to the environmental impacts of their activities, products and services. They are also committed to realising this improvement through establishment and review of environmental goals. This is typically expressed in the following manner.

“Organisation n shall regularly review and establish new goals for the protection of the environment and by this continuously decrease the environmental impact.”

“Through planning and review of our environmental work we shall strive for and accomplish a continuous improvement when it comes to the impact on the environment”(Organisation aa)

“Organisation m shall strive to continuously carry on work for improvements that decrease and prevent negative environmental impact related to the company’s activities, servicesand products.”

4.3. Identification and assessment of environmental aspects

4.3.1. Identification As mentioned above, some organisations use the establishment of the environmental policy

as a starting point for the implementation of the EMS. It is more common, however, to carry out an initial environmental review before the creation of the policy. The EMAS-registered organisations always do this, due to specifications in EMAS. In the initial review or shortlythereafter, environmental aspects are identified and assessed, which gives the organisation its significant aspects. The significant aspects are then treated as the most influential factor when establishing environmental goals. When the aspects are identified in the initial review, they are closely connected to the review. In some cases, the aspects are only documented withinthe initial review document and nowhere else. This may be a sign that the identification is seen as something you only have to do once. If an external consultant performs the initial review, it is even more likely that the aspects will not be updated in the near future, sinceimportant experience is lost to the organisation when the consultant leaves.

However, most organisations have established a separate register for the aspects and adocumented procedure for the identification process. These procedures tend to be mostlyfocused on the assessment of aspects. If a regular update of the aspects is carried out, it is usually done on a yearly basis. Larger organisations, or the ones that experience majorchanges in operations on an ongoing basis, usually have a documented procedure for updating of the aspects register in connection with new projects or other organisational changes. Table 2 shows an overview of how often the aspects are updated and reassessed.

Table 2 Intervals of time between identification and assessment of environmental aspects in the organisations in thisstudy. The data originate from 22 organisations in Jönköping and 16 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

Identification of aspects Assessment of aspects Interval of timeJönköping (%) Norrbotten/

Västerbotten (%)Jönköping (%) Norrbotten/

Västerbotten (%)Several times a year 18 13 14 7Once a year 73 87 86 80Less then once a year 9 0 0 13

8

4.3.2. Assessment The assessment of environmental aspects is often regarded as part of the same process as

the identification of aspects. The results in Table 2 also indicate this. Some organisations do, however, separate the two, probably because the assessment process is more complex and theassessors need a higher level of competence.

Neither ISO 14001 nor EMAS make any suggestions as to how the environmental aspects should be assessed, only that the organisation has to consider its significant aspects when establishing its environmental objectives and targets [28]. The form of the assessment istherefore up to every organisation wanting to be certified or registered [29]. Most organisations use some kind of tool or assessment matrix that can be rather complex in somecases. The most common form is a matrix model with a number of assessment criteria. Theassessment criteria used by the case organisations are shown in Fig. 2. For every aspect, each criterion gets a number from a scale and the total sum is calculated. The aspects with the highest sum become the significant environmental aspects. A variation on this approach is tomultiply the numbers for each criterion and get a sum. A simpler assessment approach is usedby some organisations, whereby both environmental and business considerations are usedwhen assessing the aspects. Each of the organisation’s aspects is deemed significant simplyby assigning a significance value that is based on environmental and business conditions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Am

ount

s

Ext

ent o

f the

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Ser

ious

ness

of t

he e

nviro

nmen

tal

impa

ct

Pub

lic a

nd n

eigh

bour

atti

tude

s

Reg

ulat

ory

envi

ronm

enta

l per

mit

Con

sequ

ence

s of

not

fulfi

lling

law

s an

dre

gula

tions

Tech

nica

l or o

rgan

izat

iona

l pro

blem

s

Em

ploy

ees

attit

ude

and

sugg

estio

nsfro

m e

mpl

oyee

s

Pro

babi

lity

of e

nviro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct

Cos

t for

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

cha

nge

Cus

tom

er a

ttitu

de

Per

man

ence

of i

mpa

ct o

r dam

age

Con

flict

s w

ith o

ther

act

iviti

es a

ndpr

oces

ses O

ther

fact

ors

Criteria for assessment of environmental aspects

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

anis

atio

ns

Jönköping Norrbotten/Västerbotten

Fig. 2. Criteria for assessment of environmental aspects used by the organisations in this study. The criteria originate from 23 organisations in Jönköping and 17 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

The detailed characteristics of the assessment process and the various assessment tools will not be described here, since it is not within the scope of this paper. This is described in another publication [30].

9

4.3.3. Employee involvementSome of organisations in this study involve a great number of employees at an early stage,

in the identification and assessment of aspects, but most do not introduce employeeparticipation at all. The involvement rate is generally higher in the identification phase than the assessment phase. Between 10 and 20 percent of the personal is in one way or another involved in the identification of aspects in a few of the organisations in this study. The organisations with such an involvement rate employ fewer than 50 people. Larger organisations with more than 250 employees generally let less than five percent of theemployees participate. The rates at which the organisations use their personal in the identification of aspects indicate that smaller organisations are somewhat better than largerones at involving employees in this phase of environmental policy implementation. No such indication has been found for the assessment of aspects.

4.3.4. Improvement orientation It is commonly stated in environmental management literature that organisations

implementing an EMS should be organised according to main, steering and supporting processes rather than focusing on specialised functions. If this would be true, aspects, objectives, targets and programmes should be related to and organised around these processes. This is rarely the case for the organisations in this study. Environmental aspects are mostlyconnected to functions or aggregated for the whole organisation. Objectives, targets and programmes are then established based upon the aspects. The improvements programmes are therefore established with an environmental aspect focus rather than a process or a functionfocus.

4.4. Establishment and implementation of environmental goals

ISO 14001 is stricter in its specifications on the establishment of goals and programmesthan on identification and assessment of aspects. According to the standard, objectives, targets and programmes must be established and maintained for relevant functions and levels in the organisation [29]. Most of the organisations in this study have structured their environmentalpolicy implementation according to the three levels. Therefore, this structure will also be usedin the review below. ISO 14001 also contains specifications regarding which factors should form the basis for the environmental objectives. These factors include: legal and other requirements, significant environmental aspects, technological options, financial, operational and business requirements, and the views of interested parties [28]. These factors are considered, but the organisations usually consider other factors as well, as illustrated in Fig. 3.

4.4.1. Environmental objectives An environmental objective is defined in ISO 14001 as an “overall environmental goal

arising from the environmental policy that an organisation sets itself to achieve, and which isquantified where practicable” [28]. This definition is more or less shared by the case organisations.

Environmental objectives are, for the most part, general in their nature. Their focus and formulation closely follows the environmental policy. In some cases, organisations have just taken commitments from their policy document, restructured them in a new document, andcalled them environmental objectives. Objectives are seldom quantified and are mostlyfocused on the whole organisation. The responsibility for achieving the objectives is seldomstated. When it is not, it seems as if it is understood that the CEO or the site manager isresponsible. In cases where the responsibility is stated, the CEO, the site manager, or theenvironmental manager is the responsible party. The organisations in this study are vague on

10

the time period for their objectives. The objectives are reviewed at least once a year, often in the management review at the end of the year, and it is here the objectives are re-establishedor cancelled. The establishment of objectives follows the assessment of environmental aspectsclosely. If new significant aspects are found, new objectives are also established. The findings above are illustrated by the following examples.

Organisation n:Environmental objectives for Organisation n established at the management review 1999 are:

To keep environmental awareness at a high level for all employeesTo reduce Organisation n’s total environmental impact To reduce the amount of waste to land filling

Organisation x: Environmental objectives:

Emissions of solvent MEK from rotating vvx-production shall be reduced during 2000 and an alternative method shall be developed by December 2001Stop using freons according to regulatory demandsReduce waste for destruction Reduce waste for land filling

Organisation x is also a good example of how different levels in the implementation of environmental policy are mixed together. The first objective is very distinct compared to the other three. A mixing of this kind is common among the organisations in this study.

0102030405060708090

100

Sig

nific

ant e

nviro

nmen

tal a

spec

ts

Cus

tom

er a

ttitu

de

Reg

ulat

ory

envi

ronm

enta

l per

mit

Tech

nica

l or o

rgan

isat

iona

lpr

oble

ms

Con

sequ

ence

s of

not

fulfi

lling

law

san

d re

gula

tions

Em

ploy

ees

attit

ude

and

sugg

estio

ns fr

om e

mpl

oyee

s

Pub

lic a

nd n

eigh

bour

atti

tude

s

Cos

ts

Con

flict

s w

ith o

ther

act

iviti

es a

ndpr

ocec

ces O

ther

fact

ors

Factors for establishment of environmental objectives

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

anis

atio

ns

Jönköping Norrbotten/Västerbotten

Fig. 3. Factors used by the organisations in this study when establishing environmental objectives. The factorsoriginate from 22 organisations in Jönköping and 17 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

11

Even though most organisations prefer to establish their objectives in a general format,some of them use much more distinct objectives when it comes to factors such asquantifiable/non-quantifiable and time period as illustrated below.

Organisation f: Environmental objectives:

By 1999, the company shall have reduced the amount of waste in relation to raw material by least 10% per year compared to year 1996 By 1999, the company shall have reduced the specific energy consumption by at least 6% compared to1997During 1999, the company shall reduce the number of transports per invoiced MSEK 1 by 5% (meaning that the number of transports cannot exceed 28.57 per MSEK)

Organisation w: Environmental objectives:

Ethanol- By 2005, an average yearly reduction, summed for both factories, of 7% per year,

counted as emitted ethanol per tonne plastic film producedOzone- By 2003, technology will be installed to reduce the yearly emission to a maximum

of 50% of the 1999 level - In connection with the yearly review of noise levels, establish and implement a

plan of action to reach a secured margin below what is specified in the regulatorypermit

In both Organisation f and Organisation w, the objectives are well quantifiable, measurableand limited in time. Organisation w is also one of the rare examples in which the focus of the objectives is rather long-term (three to five years). Usually when the objectives are limited in time, the time horizon is only one year.

The dominating environmental objective is a goal focusing on reduction of some kind; see Table 3a. This may be reduction of emissions, waste production, energy consumption or rawmaterials. Other kinds of goal areas such as training, replacement of chemicals or materials,control and investigation also occur, but to a much lesser extent than reduction goals.

Table 3a Goal types on the environmental objective level in the organisations in this study. The results originate from 18organisations in Jönköping and 10 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

Goal type (obj. level)

Jönköping (%) Norrbotten/Västerbotten (%)

Reduction 63.8 73.0Training 10.0 6.3Replacement 7.5 7.9Control 5.0 9.5Investigation 6.3 3.2Other 7.5 0

12

Table 3b Goal types on the environmental target level in the organisations in this study. The results originate from 15organisations in Jönköping and 10 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

Goal type (target level)

Jönköping (%) Norrbotten/Västerbotten (%)

Reduction 40.8 62.2Investigation 19.0 4.4Replacement 13.6 8.9Control 8.2 11.1Training 12.2 2.2Other 6.1 11.1

The areas of focus of the goals vary much more than the types of goals. The different areas of focus for the environmental objectives are illustrated in Fig. 4. Waste, chemicals, energy and emissions are the dominating areas.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Was

te

Che

mic

als

Ene

rgy

Emis

sion

s

Tran

spor

ts

Trai

ning

and

awar

enes

s

Inpu

ts/ra

wm

ater

ial

Gen

eral

env

.im

pact

Com

mun

icat

ion

Noi

se

Oth

er

Focus areas for environmental objectives

Perc

enta

ge

Jönköping Norrbotten/Västerbotten

Fig. 4. Focus areas for environmental objectives in the organisations in this study. The areas originate from 18organisations in Jönköping and 10 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

4.4.2. Environmental targets The major difference between an objective and a target is that the target should be

applicable to parts of the organisation as well as to the whole organisation [29]. Third-party auditors are also mostly stricter in their specifications on quantifiable goals on the target level than on the objective level.

Most of organisations in this study are good at showing the connection between the objectives and the targets in their documentation. The same goes for the targets and the next level, the environmental programme. The targets and the programme are usually stated together in the same document. The time periods for targets are in almost all cases betterdefined than the periods for the objectives. Furthermore, targets are quantified to a greater degree than objectives. Even so, targets are in many cases not quantified. The normal timeperiod for targets is one year, but periods up to five years exist. The targets are most often associated with the whole organisation, but some organisations have established targets both at the organisational level and at the departmental level. Some of the larger organisations have deployed all their objectives into targets at a lower organisational level.

The parties who are responsible for targets are usually well distributed throughout the organisation. Department managers are usually responsible for targets at the department level. A few organisations do however state that the environmental manager is responsible for mostof their targets.

13

Typical target-level goals are illustrated in Table 4. In Organisation t, the environmentalmanager seems to bear too much of the responsibility at the target level. The targets should be reached in one year. Two of the targets, D 1:1 and D 3, are quantified.

Table 4 List of environmental targets from organisation t

Goal nameDx

Target Responsible Finished by Indicator

D 1 Raw material

Compared to consumption 1999: D1:1 2 % reduction of plastic bags.D1:2 Measure paper consumptionTarget is not stated at present time.

EnvironmentalManager

00-12-31 No. of bags No. of papers

D2Transports

Complete the transport plan for group 303 by mapping out the transports for the representatives.

CEO 00-12-31

D 3 Travel

The number of km per participant must not increase during the year in connection to gatherings of the organization.

EnvironmentalManager

00-12-31 No. of km per participant

D 4 Destruction

Follow the costs of drug waste (AUP).Map out the use of test packages.

Document owner 00-12-31 Cost

D5Energy

Affect the energy consumption by following the checklist energy.The consumption of electricity is measured on the sites thathave an electricity meter.

EnvironmentalManager

00-12-31 ChecklistKWh

The target-level areas of focus correspond closely to the objective-level areas. This isexpected, since the objectives form the basis for establishment of the targets. As on theobjective level, the dominating environmental target is a goal focusing on reduction; see Table 3b. However, the percentage of the goals related to reduction of some kind is lower. The investigation type of goal has increased as well as some of the other types compared tothe objective level. It seems as if the organisations are sometimes not sure of how they should reduce an environmental aspect, and they therefore start working towards fulfilling theirobjectives by working on investigations, measures for increased control and training of staff.

4.4.3. Environmental programmesTo support the work of reaching objectives and targets, the case organisations have

established environmental programmes containing recourses, time periods and responsibilities according to specifications in ISO 14001.

The programmes are mostly stand-alone documents that clearly show the connection with the targets. However, several case organisations do not have a separate programme level. Means to reach the targets are instead included in the target document. Others, mostly largerorganisations, do not have one single document describing their programme; each function or department has its own programme. In these organisations, a back check is missing. The expected results from means in all the different programmes are not added up and verified tosee if they suffice to reach the relevant targets.

4.4.4. Employee involvementEven if employee involvement is seldom used in the identification and assessment of

aspects, it is even less common further down the implementation chain. Objectives and targetsare usually suggested by the environmental manager alone or by a small group of people fromdifferent departments and levels in the organisation. The objectives and targets are presented to the top management, and after possible corrections, the objectives and targets are established. The top management very seldom changes the suggested objectives and targetsbefore establishment.

The establishment of goals in Organisation l is a rare exception from the process described above. Their process is similar to the one described above, but they also lets the departments

14

establish their own targets and programmes. The departments are expected to contribute to objectives and targets at the organisational level, but they also have the possibility to go even further on their own. These goals and programmes are documented separately in the centralgoal document. The departments that establish additional goals get no extra funding.

4.4.5. Communication Few organisations in this study use employee participation in their environmental policy

implementation. It is also important to investigate whether employees and other stakeholders get the opportunity to react to significant aspects, objectives, targets and programmes before and after they are established. The environmental communication was therefore examined in the case organisations. Table 5 shows an overview of this communication. All case organisations communicate their environmental goals to the employees. Most of them also inform their employees of the significant environmental aspects. It is interesting to note thatonly 65% of the organisations in the Norrbotten/Västerbotten area communicate their aspects to the employees. The number is greater for Jönköping. The difference is not easy to explain and is probably due to chance, since the number of organisations is rather small.

Table 5 Communication of significant environmental aspects and environmental goals to employees and stakeholders.The results originate from 23 organisations in Jönköping and 17 organisations in Norrbotten/Västerbotten.

Communication with employeesAspects GoalsJönköping(%)

Norrb./Västerb.(%)

Jönköping(%)

Norrb./Västerb.(%)

Communicated 91 65 100 100Not communicated 4 35 0 0Do not know 4 0 0 0

Bulletin boards 71 64 82 71Verbally on department meetings 62 64 68 77Intranet 19 46 18 41Organisation wide meetings 24 36 23 12Records from meetings 19 36 32 35Environmental annual report 24 9 23 12Internal magazine 19 9 18 12Other a 10 9 5 24

Communication with stakeholdersAspects GoalsJönköping(%)

Norrb./Västerb.(%)

Jönköping(%)

Norrb./Västerb.(%)

Communicated 74 71 74 88Not communicated 17 29 17 12Do not know 9 0 9 0

Environmental annual report 35 58 47 33Information given when asked for 24 17 24 20Financial annual report 24 17 24 20Internet 18 17 24 27Information leaflet 12 17 24 7Personal contact 12 0 6 0Other c 12 17 6 20

a Includes environmental training programs, environmental handbook, employee participation and separate document for goals b Includes visits, exhibitions, open house, publications and meetings with neighbours

The most common way to communicate both aspects and goals is via bulletin boards. This information is commonly followed by verbal information in department meetings and organisation-wide meetings. In most organisations, employees therefore have the opportunity to discuss the choice of aspects and goals with the informer. The informer is usually the

15

department manager, or in some cases the environmental manager. Almost all organisations use more than one way of communicating, which will probably increase awareness amongemployees.

None of the organisations in this study work together with stakeholders when they establish their aspects and goals. Some do, however, inform stakeholders afterwards. Organisations with an EMAS registration use their annual environmental report in external communications. ISO 14001-certified organisations do not have to communicate externally, according to the specifications in ISO 14001, but they usually do anyway, either providing information voluntarily, through an environmental report, a financial report, via a website, an information leaflet, personal contacts, or upon request.

5. Discussion

5.1. Summary of characteristics

The characteristics of the environmental policy implementation in the organisations in this study can be summarised in the following points:

1. Most environmental policies are general in nature, and it is often difficult to see directly from the policy what kind of organisation the policy is related to.

2. The policy document is mostly just a starting point for the EMS implementation and isseldom communicated within the organisation.

3. Environmental improvements programmes are often established with anenvironmental aspect focus rather than a process or a function focus.

4. Time periods for goals are often chosen ad hoc. Goals with a long time period are completely missing.

5. Many goals are not quantified. 6. Employee participation is seldom used.7. Most organisations work mainly with reduction type goals. 8. Waste, chemicals, energy and emissions are the dominating goal areas. 9. The parties who are responsible for goals are usually well distributed throughout the

organisation.

That many environmental policies are general and show great similar might be expected since the implementation of environmental policy in the studied organisations is strictly controlled by requirements in ISO 14001 and EMAS. Additionally, one might also expect that the policy itself is not in focus, since the work with objectives, targets and improvement programmesprobably are more concrete to the organisations. One might expect that much responsibility regarding goal achievement is laid on the environmental manager. However, the persons responsible for goals achievement are well distributed throughout the organisations in this study, which is an advantage [31]. Another strength is that most organisations seem to work mainly which reduction-type goals. EMSs have, in most of the studied organisations, only been functioning for one or two years. Therefore, one might expect that the focus would be on goals of training or of an investigative character. The focus on reduction-type goals mightindicate that the organisations have started a process of continuous environmentalimprovement. However, weaknesses have also been found in the implementation ofenvironmental policy in the studied organisations. Changes are probably needed for point 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, which are commented on in the following section.

16

5.2. Improvement possibilities

The fact that environmental improvements programmes are often established with an environmental aspect focus rather then a process or a function focus might lead to difficultiesfor those organisations. The aspect focus works well when only environmental issues are targeted, but will be problematic when the EMS are integrated with other managementsystems such as for example quality management systems (QMS). QMSs are clearly process focused in their nature and for a QMS to work well together with an EMS, the environmentalpart of the management system must also be process oriented. An environmental aspect orientation may well be the most effective option if the EMS is a stand alone system but a process focus is probably the best way to go for most organisations.

Many of the studied organisations have difficulties with establishing an explicit time period for their goals on the objective level as specified by MBO [18, 19]. They aresignificantly better in this aspect when establishing goals on the target level. It is common that organisations choose time period ad hoc for every individual goal, both on the objective and the target level. Goals with a long time horizon are completely missing in the caseorganisations. In addition, the environmental policy is often so general that it does not provide any guidance for long-term improvements either. The implementation of environmentalpolicy can probably be improved if the same rules are applied as in quality policy deployment(QPD), which often is a part of the total quality management (TQM) concept. QPD is similarto MBO, but more focus is put on measures instead of results and the importance of employeeparticipation is even more emphasised [32]. According to Eureka and Ryan [33], the policy deployment process should include goals with long- medium and short term time periods. They suggest that long-term goals should take approximately seven to ten years to achieve and medium-term goals should be achievable within three to five years. It may even be moreadvantageous to use a seven to ten year time period on environmental goals than quality related goals, since environmental issues are often connected to benefits in the long run and not to short-term profits. Many environmental aspects, for example, energy and water consumptions, emissions and waste production are well suited to be dealt with in long-range improvement plans.

In the organisations in this study, many goals are not quantified, even if they very well could be in many cases. This fact creates probably the biggest problem within environmentalpolicy implementation, if one believes in the frequently stated expression that “what cannot be measured cannot be managed”. Unfortunately, the literature gives no solutions on how to come to terms with this problem. In literature describing best practice regarding QPD, it isoften taken for granted that all goals are quantified and that this is absolutely necessary for thepolicy implementation process to be successful [33, 34, 35, 36]. There is no reason to believe that environmental goals should be treated any different than any other type of goal. It is true that it is sometimes hard to find suitable measures for many environmental goals, but if one cannot measure progress, it is hard to know if and when the goal is reached. It is probably more efficient to allocate resources to finding metrics and measuring progress for a few goals than to work with many fuzzy and unclear goals.

Also regarding participative decision making, the organisations in this study do not commonly follow the advice given by MBO. In the literature, employee awareness and commitment to environmental issues is mentioned as an important factor for EMS success [37, 38, 39]. One way to reach commitment to environmental issues might be through employee involvement in the environmental policy implementation. It would probably bepreferable to involve employees in the policy implementation as soon as possible, when environmental aspects are identified and assessed. Some evidence for this connection between involvement and awareness was found by Andrews et al. in a study of manufacturing

17

companies in the U.S. They found that managers who otherwise were critical becamesupportive when they were involved in identifying environmental aspects and impacts, determining their significance and setting goals [40]. Some smaller organisations in this study involve larger parts of the organisation in the identification of aspects, but later in the process, it tends to be a management issue again. In larger organisations in this study, the whole process only involves top management and the environmental manager or environmentaldepartment. Again, the theory behind QPD might be useful. In QPD, an annual policy containing both goals and the means to reach the goals is deployed through the whole organisation. In the organisations this study, it is usually the means that are deployed and the goals are set for the whole organisation or parts of it by top management. If middle managersand line personnel are to be more committed to and aware of the importance of the goals, they should be given the opportunity to participate in the process for establishment of goals and not just the means. For example, if an organisation is committed to reducing its energyconsumption, management should go through a ‘catchball’ process with middle managers to establish how much each part of the organisation could contribute to the total reduction. Acatchball process is a way to resolve the differences that arise when goals are established on different levels within the organisation [32]. When upper management establishes the annual goals, they discuss the goals and the actions needed to reach the goals with middlemanagement. Goals and actions cannot be established before consensus is reached. The samediscussions are later conducted between middle management and supervisors and between supervisors and line personnel. In this way, agreement about the reduction of energy consumption is reached through to whole organisation. It should not be assumed that all parts of an organisation could contribute with the same magnitude of reduction. Top managementadds up reduction suggestions from all over the organisation and a total reduction number is reached. If top management still feels that the reduction could be even greater, this message is communicated down the line. New suggestions are added up and the process continues until consensus is reached throughout the organisation. The environmental manager or environmental department should be available for expert advice during the whole process but should not be responsible for the process itself or the outcome of the process. The introduction of a catchball process probably results in greater consumption of time and resources. On the other hand, it might increase awareness and efficiency to such a degree that the effort is justified.

It is not surprising that waste, chemicals, energy and emissions are the dominating goal areas in the studied organisations, since these areas belong to the traditional way of conducting environmental work [41]. Somewhat surprising is the fact that transports are only the fifth most common area. This may be explained by the fact that it is harder for theorganisations to influence the environmental impact from transports than it is to influenceimpact from areas such as, for example, waste and chemicals. Goals related to products are completely missing, which is also surprising because many of the organisations in this study have products that can be classified as significant aspects. These findings regarding the lack of focus on environmental improvements connected to products is in agreement with findingsin other studies. Grüner et al. observed that there was no or only a very weak link between EMS and product development in a study of 34 companies where an EMS was implemented[42]. A Swedish study on the experiences of external environmental auditors also indicated that the link between EMSs and products is rather weak [43]. It is the auditors’ experience that product issues are seldom regarded as significant environmental aspects and are therefore not within the main scope of many EMSs. The lack of product focus can not be explained by the possibility to influence this aspect. Instead, it is probably a question of lack of experience and that it takes more time and resources to work with product improvement than with process improvement. In addition, another Swedish study concludes that it is not, in practice,

18

an absolute requirement that products are included in a certified EMS [44]. Since it is not required, most organisations will most probable focus on what is actually required.

5. Conclusions

The implementation of environmental policy in the organisations in this study is strictly controlled by specifications in ISO 14001 and EMAS. All organisations in this study followthe specifications, even though it in some cases is obvious that they do not need all the policy implementation levels specified by the standards. Some organisations, especially smallerones, therefore have a more complex process than they really need. Few of the studiedorganisations have adopted the specifications to better suit local conditions. It is not known whether it is the organisations’ own choice or if they have been forced by third-party auditors to strictly follow standard specifications. Organisations might achieve a more effectiveenvironmental policy implementation if they focus more on a process characterised by long-and medium-term goals and annual plans and catch ball-type communication according to QPD, and focus less on ISO 14001’s specifications on objectives, targets and programmes.

References

[1] Lent T, Wells RP. Corporate environmental management survey shows shift from compliance to strategy,In: Willig JT, editor. Environmental TQM. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.

[2] ISO World. http://www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/english/analy14k.htm. (December 29, 2004)

[3] Rondinelli D, Vastag G. Panacea, common Sense, or just a label? The value of ISO 14001 environmentalmanagement systems. European Management Journal 2000;18(5):499-510.

[4] Summers-Rainers S. Benefits of ISO 14001 certification. Corporate Environmental Strategy 2002;9(4):418-426.

[5] Krut R, Gleckman H. ISO 14001: A missed opportunity for sustainable global industrial development.London: Earthscan Publications, 1998.

[6] Zackrisson M, Enroth M, Widing A. Environmental management systems – paper tiger or a powerfultool, IVF-skrift. Göteborg: IVF, 2000.

[7] MEPI. Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry. University of Sussex, 2001.

[8] NDEMS. National Database of Environmental Management Systems. http://www.eli.org/isopilots.htm.(August 6, 2002)

[9] Wallner HP, Sebesta B, Wolf P, Spiegel C, Leitner T, Schauer K. Evaluation der Cleaner ProductionProgramme in Österreich. Graz, 2000.

[10] Steger U. Environmental management systems: empirical evidence and further perspectives. EuropeanManagement Journal 2000;18(1):23-37.

[11] Pecher A, Tshulik A, Martinuzzi A. EMAS – An Instrument for Environmental Communication. 2002.

[12] Schylander E, Zobel T. Environmental effects of environmental management systems: evaluation of theevidence. Easy-Eco 2. Vienna 2003.

[13] Locke EA. Toward a theory of motivation and incentives. Organizational Behaviour and HumanPerformance 1968;(May 1968):157-189.

[14] Drucker P. The practice of management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954.

19

[15] Latham GP, Yukl GA. A review of research on the application of goal setting on organizations. Academyof Management Journal 1975;18(4):824-845.

[16] Tubbs ME. Goal-setting: a meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of AppliedPsychology 1986 (August 1986): 474-483.

[17] Locke EA, Latham GP. A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

[18] Carroll SJ, Tosi HL. Management by objectives: application and research. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

[19] Rodgers R, Hunter JE. Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal ofApplied Psychology 1991;76(2):322-336.

[20] Erez M, Earley PC, Hulin CL. The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: a two step model. Academy of Management Journal 1985;28(1):50-66.

[21] Robbins SP. Organizational behaviour. Seventh edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc,1996.

[22] Jensen MK. Kvalitativa metoder för samhälls- och beteendevetare. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1995.

[23] Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGEPublications Inc., 1994.

[24] Miljöledningsarkivet. http://www.miljostyrning.se/miljoledningsarkivet.asp. (November 30, 1999)

[25] ISO-Fakta Norden. http://www.isofakta.com. (November 30, 1999)

[26] Merriam SB. Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1988.

[27] Denzin NK. Sociological methods: a sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.

[28] International Standard Organisation. ISO 14001: Environmental management systems - specification withguidance for use. ISO, 1996.

[29] Zobel T, Almroth C, Bresky J, Burman J-O. Identification and assessment of environmental aspects in anEMS context: an approach to a new reproducible method based on LCA-methodology. Journal of CleanerProduction 2002;10(4):381-396.

[30] Zobel T, Burman J-O. Factors of importance in identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: Experiences in Swedish Organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(1):13-27.

[31] Giles F. Integrating managers into environmental management systems. Environmental QualityManagement 2005;14(4):31-38.

[32] Bergman B, Klefsjö, B. Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. Second edition. Lund:Studentlitteratur, 2003.

[33] Eureka WE, Ryan NE. The process-driven business: managerial perspectives on policy management.Dearborn, Michigan: ASI Press, 1990.

[34] Sheridan BM. Policy deployment: The TQM approach to long-range planning. Milwaukee, Wisconsin:ASQC Quality Press, 1993.

[35] Nord C, Olson E-K. Quality policy deployment: måldialog för överensstämmelse mellan visioner ochdagligt arbete. Lund: Utbildningshuset, Studentlitteratur, 1994.

20

[36] Akao T. Hoshin kanri: policy deployment for successful TQM. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press,1991.

[37] Brorson, T, Larsson G. Environmental management. Stockholm: EMS, 1999.

[38] Welford R. Corporate Environmental management: culture and organisations. London: EarthscanPublications Ltd, 1997.

[39] Wilson RC. EMS awareness will define success of EMS. Pollution Engineering 1998;30(10):43-44.

[40] Andrews, R., Amaral, D., Darnall, N., Rigling Gallagher, D., Edwards, D., Hutson, A., D’Amore, C., Sun,L., Zhang, Y., Keiner, S., Feldman, E., Fried, D., Jacoby, J., Mitchell, M. & Pflum, K. (2003).Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve Performance? National Database onEnvironmental Management Systems. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

[41] Klassen RD, Whybank DC. The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance.Academy of Management Journal 1999;42(6):599-615.

[42] Grüner C, Dannheim F, Birkhofer H. Integration of EMS and DFE. Current practice and future trends.Proceedings from the 6th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. Kingston (Ontario, Canada),1999:131-140.

[43] Ammenberg J, Sundin E. Products in environmental management systems – the role of auditors. Journalof Cleaner Production 2005;13(4):417-431.

[44] Hjelm O, Lundgren J, Idegren L. Miljöledd produktutveckling. Ett projekt i skärningspunkten mellanmiljöledning och miljöanpassad produktutveckling. Linköping University & IVF, 2001.

21

Paper IV

Environmental effects of environmental management systems – evaluation of the evidence

Schylander, E. & Zobel, T. (2003)

Proceedings of Evaluation of Sustainability European Conference – EASY-ECO 2, Vienna, Austria, May 15-17, pp. 404-415

Elisabeth Schylander, Thomas Zobel

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: EVALUATION OF THE

EVIDENCE1. Introduction

Since the environmental impact of industrial activities is not conducive to sustainabledevelopment, organizations1 have been motivated to adopt Environmental ManagementSystems (EMSs2) (Rivera-Camino, 2001). There are basically two EMSs standards – the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and the international standard ISO 14001. ISO 14001 provides guidelines by which organizations design and implement an EMS that identifies the organization’s environmental policy, the environmental aspects of itsoperations, legal and other requirements, a set of clearly defined objectives and targets forenvironmental improvement, and a set of environmental management programs (Jackson,1997). EMAS is similar to ISO 14001 in its components and requirements but unlike ISO 14001, EMAS requires organizations to produce an environmental statement of the environmental effects and legal requirements at the site (Morrow & Rondinelli, 2002).

The most often heard criticism is that ISO 14001 certification does not measure the actual environmental performance of an organization (Krut & Gleckman, 1998). The standardsmerely assume that a company that certifies its EMS has a management system in place to deal with its environmental impacts. Certification implies that organizations meet regulatorymandates and go beyond legal requirements to achieve continuous environmentalimprovements, but there is no way of externally verifying that such improvements actuallyoccur (Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000). The ISO 14001 guidelines simply assume that good environmental management systems will, if they are implemented effectively, reduce oreliminate negative environmental impacts and move a company toward better environmental performance (Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000; Summers-Raines, 2002).

As more and more organizations establish EMSs, it is important to investigate if an implementation of an EMS leads to improvements of the environmental performance of a company. Advocates of an international standard for assessing corporate EMS claim substantial benefits for organizations that adopt ISO 14001 guidelines (Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000). Others argue that because the standards do not measure environmental performancedirectly, they are inadequate instruments for improving environmental sustainability (Krut &Gleckman, 1998).

1The word organization hereafter refers to all type of organizations such as industry, companies, municipal andpublic authorities.2The abbreviation EMS (Environmental Management System) is used in this paper for the sake of simplicity.

2. Research focus

Several empirical studies try to evaluate how an implementation of an EMS influences the environmental performance, cost, and benefit of organizations; see e.g., Wallner et al.(2000); Zackrisson et al. (2000); Ammenberg (2001); Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2001); MEPI(2001); NDEMS (2001); Welch et al. (2002). However, few have evaluated the evaluationsi.e., performed a meta-evaluation. One exception is Steger (2000). In that article a trial is presented to assess the impact an EMS has had on organizations with focus on ecologicalgoals and impacts, the economic cost-benefit of EMS, organization and information. The review is based mainly on German-speaking evaluations of smaller empirical investigations of EMS. Given the broad range of the available studies, with different research questions anda wide variety of research methods, Steger (2000) reports that the use of EMS leads to a more effective organization flow, a higher degree of legal compliance and a morecomprehensive exploitation of the “win-win” potential of ecological and economical benefits.Another meta-evaluation performed by Pecher et al. (2002) examined 13 Austrian evaluation studies of EMS. The central focus of the meta-evaluation was on ecological effects,economical effects, and image benefits. The answer to the question about ecological effects of EMSs is that some results showed a good and strong effect, others showed no effect; onthe other hand, they did not find an overall result about the continual improvement of the environmental performance. In their conclusions they state that a question to be dealt with infuture evaluation studies of EMS is the adequate application of appropriate methodologies (qualitative or quantitative) to the related questions. They also argue that research shouldalso more precisely define which method or mix of methods the problems should be tackled with to enable greater clarity of results.

As far as we know, there has been no meta-evaluation of EMSs with the sole aim of lookingat evaluations focusing on environmental effects and methods used in the evaluations.Neither is there any meta-evaluation based on evaluations from different areas around theworld. It has not been proved, either from evaluations or from meta-evaluations, that an EMS really improves the environmental performance of a company.

The focus in this paper is a meta-evaluation of the existing evaluations that address at least one research question concerning environmental effects resulting from the implementation ofan EMS. The meta-evaluation is based on evaluation studies with empirical data of aqualitative and/or quantitative nature from numerous registered or certified organizations. It isnot based on in-depth case studies. Another requirement was that the evaluations had to bebased on an EMS according to ISO 14001 and/or EMAS. In this paper, we focus on the following research questions:

1. What do these evaluation studies say about the environmental effects of an EMS?2. What methods are used in these evaluation studies?3. What methods are suitable when evaluating the environmental effects of EMSs?

The methods are of interest for analysis of whether any conclusion can be drawn about thecorrelation between results and methods used in the evaluations, but also to enable recommendations on methods to be used when evaluating the environmental effects ofEMSs.

3. Research methodology

In this paper, a literature review consisting of existing evaluations of EMS is presented.Typical literature reviews in the social sciences have been criticized on the grounds of a lack of quality control in integrating results (Glass et al. 1981). Therefore, Glass introduced the term meta-analysis as a way to derive quantitative answers from qualitative research. Often,researchers use the term meta-analysis incorrectly. This technique requires a sufficientnumber of existing evaluation studies to enable a quantitative answer. Since this survey ofthe existing evaluations within the topic EMS consists of few evaluations, a meta-analysis is not of interest. In 1969 Michael Scriven introduced the term meta-evaluation (Stufflebeam,2000). Scriven defined a meta-evaluation as “any evaluation of an evaluation(s), evaluationsystem, or evaluation device”. According to Widmer (2002) a meta-evaluation has afundamentally different goal compared to a meta-analysis. It is an evaluation of one or moreevaluations that intends to systematically establish the worth and merit of the evaluation(s). In other words, a meta-evaluation assesses the quality of an evaluation, for which reason,assessment criteria must be applied. Scriven´s basic point is the same and he uses a meta-evaluation by issuing inaccurate reports. He stressed that the evaluations must themselvesbe evaluated (Stufflebeam, 2000). Stufflebeam uses the following formal definition of the concept meta-evaluation:

“Meta-evaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptiveinformation and judgmental information about the utility, feasibility, propriety, andaccuracy of an evaluation in order to guide the evaluation to publicly report its strengthsand weaknesses”.

Analyzing secondary data can be seen as a re-analysis of data for the purpose of answeringthe original research question, or answering new questions with old data. It can also be used to identify additional trends and patterns (Glass et al. 1981). In this paper, the originalresearch question in the evaluations and the first research question in this paper are the same; i.e., what do these evaluation studies say about the environmental effects of an EMS?The second and the third research questions in this paper, i.e., what methods are used in these evaluation studies? and what methods are suitable when evaluating the environmental effects of EMSs?, are new research questions that will be answered with data from theexisting evaluations of EMS. The research design used in this paper can be seen as astructured but also iterative process as illustrated in Figure 1.

According to Figure 1, an exhaustive search was made during the period May-December2002 in relevant databases to find evaluations concerning environmental effects of an EMS.The search started with defining key words to find articles of interest. Once an interestingarticle was found, all relevant references in the reference list were sought. To be able to answer the research question about methods used in the evaluation, the evaluation report upon which the article is based was requested. The empirical data were then systematizedafter its contents, i.e., if the evaluation’s aim was to evaluate the environmental effects or not.The remaining evaluations after this step were then analyzed according to the researchquestions about the results and method.

Figure 1: Research design used in this paper.

4. Description of the empirical base

A total of 17 evaluations with a focus on effects of EMSs were found. Ten of the studies wereexcluded from the meta-evaluation, mainly because they did not have a research questionfocusing on environmental effects. The evaluations to be analyzed in the meta-evaluationsare described in Table 1.

Define relevantdatabases

Define words forsearching

Structuring thecollection of data

Relevant databases:WileyKluwerScience directEbsco Business Source EliteEbsco Academic Search EliteEbsco Econ Lit

Words for searching:Environmental ManagementSystem (EMS)Environmental ManagementEnvironmental EffectEvaluationCorporate Environmental Management

1. Searching in the databases2. File interesting articles in a

systematic way.

Systematize the empiricaldata according to contents

Analyze theempirical data

Focus:To find the original EMSevaluation upon which the article is based. The aim isto search the original evaluation where researchquestions, methods, empirical work, etc. are fully described.

Searching of newreferences in the

reference list

1. Decision of interestingvariables must be madebefore analysing the empirical data. Variablessuch as:-Method used -Results

2. Interpreting the findings3. Finding interesting results

Concrete thefindings

Table 1. Evaluations included in the meta-evaluation of environmental effects of EMS.No. Evaluation Area and time

periodObjective Method EMS

basisNo of org. Results

1 “How do standardizedEnvironmentalManagement Systems affect environmentalperformance andbusiness?”

(Ammenberg, 2001)

Sweden

1997 to 1999

One of two researchquestions was: How do anEMS affect the environmental efforts oforganizations?

Comparison between environmentalindicators in environmental reviewsbefore and after an implementation of an EMS.

ISO 14001 26 SME certifiedorganizations

The method used has resultedin significant environmentalimprovements in general. An ISO 14001 certificate does notguarantee good environmentalperformance but it can verywell lead to reduced environmental impact.

2 “EnvironmentalManagement Systems – Paper tiger or a powerful tool”.

(Zackrisson et al., 2000)

Sweden

1998-1999

One of five research questions was: Which actual environmentalimprovements have EMSachieved?

Two-fold:Questionnaire to all registered/certified organizationsuntil November 1998 (360).Response rate 49% In-depth interview with the environmental responsible personat 19 of these organizations.

EMASISO 14001

172 out of 354 certified/registeredorganizations.

EMAS-registeredorganizations seem to achievebetter environmentalperformance thanorganizations with ISO 14001.Half of the environmentalobjectives and targets wouldhave been achieved evenwithout EMS.

3 “Wirksamheit undLeistung vonUmweltmanagement-systemen – EineUntersuchung von ISO14001-zertifiertenUnternehmen in der Schweiz”

(Dyllick & Hamschmidt, 2000)

Switzerland

1999

The focus of the study wasto evaluate the effectiveness of EMSs in Swissorganizations. One of four research questions was:How do they perceive theeconomic and environmentaleffects of their EMS?

Questionnaire sent to 348 EMSmanagement representatives of all ISO 14001 certified organizations in Switzerland until March 31 1999.Response rate 45%

ISO 14001 158 out of 348 certifiedorganizations.

A clear majority of organizations, 60%, assign toEMSs only supportiveinfluence with regard to the effects on environmentalperformance. Only some 15%of the organizations perceive adecisive influence for EMSs. A further 15% of theorganizations did not perceiveany influence regarding EMSs.

No. Evaluation Area and timeperiod

Objective Method EMSbasis

No. of org. Results

4 “Evaluation der CleanerProduction Programme in Österreich”

Austria

(Wallner et al., 2000)

2000

An overall aim was to evaluate how environmental management programs affect business development and environmental performance. (EMAS and ISO 14001 were only two of several programs.).

Questionnaire sent to 498 organizations (217 certified/registered organizations). 130 (43) organizations answered which gives a response rate of 25.6% (19.8%). Interviews were carried out with 44 of the 130 organizations.

EMASISO 14001

A total of 130 organizations participated (43 certified/ registered organizations)

An EMAS-registration or ISO 14001-certification has a positive effect on some environmental performance parameters but has no or even negative effects on others. It is not possible to draw an overall conclusion that EMSs have a positive effect on corporate environmental performance.

5 “Measuring theEnvironmental Performance of Industry”

(MEPI, 2001)

Six EU countries: UK, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy.

Seven periods 1985, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998

One of nine research questions was: Does environmental management have an impact on environmental performance?

Database of 60 variables (data on performance) and indicators (a normalized measure of performance) from six industrial sectors were analyzed statistically. Variables came from both certified/registered organizations and those that were not.

EMASISO 14001

A total of 280 firms and 430 production sites

There is no statistically significant relationship between ISO 14001 certification or EMAS registration and any of the key environmental performance variables in the sectors.

6 “National Database on Environmental Management Systems”

(NDEMS, 2001)

10 states in the USA.

Started 1996 and is an on-going project.

An overall aim with the project was to collect data in order to determine how the environmental and economic performance of private and public organizations is affected by the implementation of EMSs.

Two-fold: A standardized data collection protocol that obtain information about the Environmental Performance Indicator Values. Updates every 6 months.

Open- and closed-ended questionnaire to capture firm-specific information.

ISO 14001 Database containing more than 100 private and public certified organizations.

The results are expected within the near future.

7 “Voluntary Adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: Mechanism, Stages and Effects”

(Welch et al., 2002)

Japan

1999

An overall aim was to compare the environmental behavior of different adopter groups (non-adopter, in process, and certified) and across four types of environmental actions to determine the extent to which greenness is associated with EMS adoption.

Questionnaire sent to the facility manager of all certified organizations (until March 1999) and 2200 non-certified organizations in four industries. Response rate of 50.7% (ISO adopters) and 20.2% (non-adopters).

ISO 14001 2918 certified and non-certifiedorganizations. 718 certified.

The results do not indicate a causal linkage between ISO adoption and greening activity. Evidence shows that ISO 14001 adoption has some effect on the greening behavior of the organization. Organizations become greener as they move from non-adopters to in-process adopters and finally to cert.

The evaluations in Table 1 to be analyzed in the meta-evaluation are further describedbelow.

No 1. - “How do standardized Environmental Management Systems affect environmentalperformance and business?”Ammenberg has questioned whether an EMS enhances the environmental performance of 26 small enterprises form different businesses. The quantitative data from environmentalreviews, independent of different sectors, were divided into five groups: energy, water,goods, waste and by-products, and transportation and with a process consisting of 5 steps a“total environmental score” was calculated. A first look at the “total environmental score”shows that 88% of the quantified results are positive. But taking the data availability and reliability into account and analyzing the trustworthiest means, it is quite clear that the enterprises, according to the method used, have improved their environmental performance. In his conclusions he argues that “an ISO 14001 certificate does not guarantee good environmental performance but it can very well lead to reduced environmental impact.”

No 2 - “Environmental Management Systems – Paper tiger or a powerful tool”.The aim was to assess the environmental and cost efficiency of the EMSs certified andregistered in Sweden until October 1999 in accordance with ISO 14001 and/or EMAS. Aquestionnaire was sent to the environmental managers of 354 organizations with a responserate of 49%. The organizations were divided into two groups: industry respectively serviceand trade. The questionnaire comprised 16 questions, of which two aimed to evaluate theenvironmental effects that the EMS has had on the company. The results show that thegreatest environmental improvements are: better waste sorting, less waste, safer handling of chemicals, lower energy consumption and less discharge. In response to the question towhat extent EMS reduced environmental impact the respondents did not show significant positive effects. The questionnaire was complemented with an interview with theenvironmental manager in 19 of the 354 organizations. One result implies that about 50% ofthe environmental targets have been achieved as a consequence of the EMS. This can be seen as a positive effect of the EMS. While 77% of the targets have a focus on reduction, the conclusion of the interviews is that the EMSs have had a positive effect on the environment.

No 3 - “Wirksamheit und Leistung von Umweltmanagement-systemen – Eine Untersuchungvon ISO 14001-zertifierten Unternehmen in der Schweiz”The focus of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EMSs in Swiss organizations. One question among others was: How do the organizations perceive the economic andenvironmental effects of their EMS? The questionnaire was sent to the EMS managementrepresentatives of all ISO 14001 certified organizations in Switzerland as of March 1999. A total of 348 certified organizations received the questionnaire with a response rate of 45%.Nine of 42 questions in the questionnaire were related to environmental effects of EMS. Thequestions were open-ended questions, whereby the respondent had to make a statementabout the environmental effects according to different areas. The results show that 92% ofthe environmental managers who answered acknowledge that an EMS implementation led to an increase in importance of environmental topics in their organizations. A clear majority oforganizations, 60% assign to EMSs only supportive influence with regard to the effects on environmental performance. Only some 15% of the organizations perceive a decisive influence for EMSs. A further 15% of the organizations did not perceive any influenceregarding EMSs.

No 4 - “Evaluation der Cleaner Production Programme in Österreich”The overall objective was to evaluate how environmental management programs affectbusiness development and environmental performance. The evaluated programs included EMAS and ISO 14001 among other Environmental Management Programs. Empirical datawere collected via questionnaires with qualitative and quantitative questions. Questionnaires were sent to 498 organizations, of which 217 were certified or registered according to EMAS

or ISO 14001. 130 organizations responded, of which 43 were certified/registered. The questionnaires were complemented by interviews with 44 of the 130 organizations. Mostresults in the study are reported as overall results for all the management programs and it is therefore not always possible to exclude effects from EMAS or ISO 14001. Theenvironmental performance is divided into several factors including water, energy and oil consumption, generation of waste paper, scrap metal, hazardous waste and generation of wastewater. An EMAS-registration or ISO 14001-certification has a positive effect on someenvironmental performance parameters, but has no or even negative effects on others. It istherefore not possible to draw an overall conclusion as to whether EMSs have positiveeffects on corporate environmental performance or not.

No 5 - “Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry”The objective was to develop measures for comparing the overall environmental performance of industrial organizations. The organizations were both certified (ISO 14001 and/or EMAS) and non-certified organizations in six EU countries. One research question,among others, was: Does an EMS have an impact on environmental performance? A standardized approach for quantitative environmental performance indicators in six industrial sectors was developed. A database of environmental performance information for 280 firms and 430 production sites was built and analyzed statistically. A total of 60 variables (data on performance) were identified covering the six sectors and as a second step, indicators (a normalized measure of performance) were constructed from the variables. Variables andindicators were collected from seven years. The MEPI evaluation shows that at a specific time, organizations with a certified EMS do not appear to perform better than those without, although at both the site (EMAS) and firm levels the statistical significance of this result was low. In some cases, firms with certified EMSs performed worse. The study does not measurethe rate of environmental performance change between EMS organizations and non-EMS organizations.

No 6 - “National Database on Environmental Management Systems”An overall aim of the project was to collect data in order to determine how the environmentaland economic performance of private and public organizations is affected by theimplementation of EMSs. The information gathered from the organizations is being incorporated into a national EMS database. A common set of data collection protocols provides the basis for the project’s data collection. The database contains data on more than100 private and public organizations, including those with ISO 14001 EMSs, non-ISO EMSs, and non-EMS environmental management practices. The non ISO-EMS and non-EMSenvironmental practices will serve as a control group. The environmental performance is based on environmental indicators with a normalization factor for a period of three years. Thedata are clarified through a telephone interview two or three times a year. The design of the study is an analysis in real time, including the three-year retrospective baseline, and at leasttwo years post-implementation data on changes in environmental performance. The project has not reached any definite conclusions on how EMSs affect environmental performance.The results are going to be presented within the near future and through statistical methods conclusions about EMS and environmental performance will be drawn.

No 7 - “Voluntary Adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: Mechanism, Stages and Effects”An overall aim was to compare the environmental behavior of different adopter groups across four types of environmental actions to determine the extent to which greenness is associatedwith EMS adoption. Another aim was to study generalizable differences between first stageadopters, second stage adopters and non-adopters by comparing the environmental

behavior of the different adopter groups to determine the extent to which greenness isassociated with EMS adoption. In March 1999, survey questionnaires were sent to 2918Japanese facility managers in four industries. Of the 718 ISO certified organizationssurveyed, 364 responded (response rate 50.7%). Only 445 of the 2200 non-ISOorganizations responded (response rate 20.2%). The result of the level of greening activity across the three different stages of adoption indicates significant differences among the three groups. At one level, these differences may indicate that ISO 14001 adoption has someeffect on the actual greening behavior on the organization. In other words, organizationsbecome greener as they move from non-adopters to in-process and finally to certification.

5. Results

In this paper three questions were asked:

What do these evaluation studies say about the environmental effects of an EMS?What methods are used in these evaluation studies?What methods are suitable when evaluating the environmental effects of EMSs?

To address these questions we used a meta-evaluation based on evaluations with a focus onenvironmental effects of EMSs. To get an overview of the methods, strategies for measuring,and results in the evaluations, Table 2 was constructed. Each research question is thendiscussed in more detail in the following sections.

Table 2. Methods for data collection, strategies for measuring, and results in the differentevaluations, where each number represents an evaluation according to Table 1. The environmental effects in the evaluations are shown as + (positive= reduced environmentalimpact), o (none), – (negative= increased environmental impact) or ? (No results are drawnyet).

METHOD FOR DATA COLLECTIONQuestionnaire InterviewEnvironmental

Indicator Structured Unstructured Structured Unstructured

-Rate of EP3 change-EMS org.

1+ 2o3+4+

2+

4+-Actual EP -EMS org. compared to non-EMS org.

5o 7+

STR

ATE

GIE

S FO

R

MEA

SUR

ING

- Rate of EP change-EMS org. compared to non-EMS org.

6? 6? 6? 6?

5.1.Environmental effects of EMSThe overall results indicate that a majority of the evaluations state that an EMS has a positiveeffect on the environmental performance. No evaluation states negative environmentaleffects, two evaluations could state no correlation between an EMS and environmental performance but in one of these the results also differ within the evaluation. In one evaluationthe results are not drawn yet.

3The abbreviation EP, which stands for Environmental Performance, is used in the table for the sake of simplicity.

The generalization in the evaluations is low. No one has, despite a positive effect in the evaluation, been able to generalize the results. However, all evaluations have made ageneralization within the evaluation, as Ammenberg (2001) expresses his conclusions:

“According to the method used, the joint EMS and co-operation at Hackefors industrial districthas resulted in significant environmental improvements in general”

However, Ammenberg and all others argue that they are not able to determine if EMSs are agenerally positive phenomenon from a general environmental point of view.

5.2.Methods used in the evaluations Three kinds of methods were used in the evaluations; namely, environmental indicator,questionnaire and interview. Some evaluators used more than one method in their evaluation (Zackrisson et al., 2000; Wallner et al., 2000; NDEMS, 2001) and the evaluations also haddifferent strategies for measuring the environmental effects of an EMS. It is not possible todraw any conclusions if methods and results have a causal linkage because the results tendto differ between each method but also within each method, see Table 2.

5.2.1. Strategies for measuringAn important part when evaluating these evaluations is to look at how they have measured the environmental effects of the EMS. In the evaluations there are three different strategies for measuring:

1. The rate of environmental performance change in EMS organizations;2. Actual environmental performance in EMS organizations compared to actual

environmental performance in non-EMS organizations;3. The rate of environmental performance change in EMS organizations compared to

the rate of environmental performance change in non-EMS organizations.

At first, an evaluator can choose to measure the rate of environmental performance change in EMS organizations to see if the EMS has led to any environmental improvements or not. In this paper, four of seven evaluations are based on this kind of measurement (Ammenberg,2001; Zackrisson et al., 2001; Dyllick & Hamschmidt, 2000; Wallner et. al., 2000), themajority indicating positive results. It is important to bear in mind whether something else haschanged, for example laws or production, which can cause changes in the environmentalimpact. But, this strategy does not measure if the EMS organizations have a better environmental performance than non-EMS organizations.

The second strategy compares the actual environmental performance in EMS organizationswith the actual environmental performance in organizations without an EMS. In this paper,two of seven evaluations are measured in this way, one of which has no correlation betweenan EMS and environmental performance (MEPI, 2001) and one has a positive result (Welchet al., 2002). This strategy does not measure the environmental improvements and it onlyshows the differences between EMS organizations and non-EMS organizations at onespecific time.

Finally, an evaluator can choose to analyze the rate of environmental performance change in EMS organizations and compare the results with the rate of environmental performance change in non-EMS organization as a control group. This is to enable the evaluator to draw a conclusion as to whether the EMS has led to any changes in environmental performance compared to organizations without an EMS during the same time period. In this meta-evaluation, only one evaluation uses a procedure like this (NDEMS, 2001), but no resultshave yet been drawn.

In accordance with Ammenberg (2001), our opinion is that to be able to determine if EMSsare a positive phenomenon from an environmental point of view, the development of environmental performance in EMS organizations and similar organizations that do not useEMS should be compared and measured before and after an implementation; see strategynumber three.

5.2.2. Environmental indicatorsTo measure the environmental effects of an EMS, three evaluations have usedenvironmental indicators (Ammenberg, 2001; MEPI, 2001; NDEMS, 2001). One differencebetween these evaluations is that two have measured, assessed, and drawn conclusionsabout the different environmental aspects separately (waste, energy consumption, emissions, etc). Ammenberg (2001) uses a total environmental score to be able to compare the results from one organization to another. This is connected to the often-discussed coreproblem as to whether it is possible to compare one organization to another or if eachorganization is specific.

5.2.3. Questionnaire The questionnaires were either structured, i.e., structured questions and answers, analyzed quantitatively, or unstructured, i.e., open questions analyzed qualitatively. Of five evaluationsusing questionnaires, only one measures according to the unstructured method (NDEMS,2001). However, at the same time, this evaluation also complements the questionnaire withquestions in a structured way. In all cases, the questionnaires were sent to the environmentalmanager and there is a risk that the results may be a bit too optimistic. Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000) discuss this problem in their evaluation and they argue that the findings would quite naturally be different if they had asked more people with different responsibilities in theorganizations, rather than just asking the environmental managers. The questions in thequestionnaires differ a lot between the evaluations. Zackrisson et al. (2000) use theenvironmental manager’s total impression as to what extent the EMS has reduced theenvironmental impact. Important too, is to ask questions that not are of a slanted character.Examples of slanted questions that presume a positive environmental effect of an EMS wasasked by Zackrisson et al. (2000): “State the three greatest environment-improving measures you have achieved by virtue of your EMS?” and “To what extent has the EMS reducedenvironmental impact by your company on a scale from 1 to 6?”

Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000), NDEMS (2001) and Welch et al. (2002) have specific questions about the EMS effect on each environmental aspect and have also assessed them separately. Notable is that the response rates for the evaluation using questionnaires arelow; i.e., from 25.6% to 50.7% and according to Dahmström (1996), a survey with loss of responses more than 20-30% is a useless survey. However, Melnyk et al. (2002) argue thata low response rate is not unusual for environmental surveys of private-sector firms. If theresponse rates are low, a non-response analysis to determine if there is a big differencebetween the respondents and non-respondents is recommended (Dahmström, 1996). In this meta-evaluation, none of the seven evaluations included a non-response analysis.

5.2.4. Interview An interview can either be structured, i.e., structured questions analyzed quantitatively, or unstructured, i.e., open questions analyzed qualitatively. The three evaluations usinginterviews as a method (Zackrisson et al., 2000; Wallner et al., 2000; NDEMS, 2001) usedstructured questions as a follow-up method for complementing and clarifying the results from the questionnaire.

5.3.Suitable methods for evaluating the environmental effects of EMS

Many evaluators working with evaluation of EMSs have a background in natural sciences,while the subject of EMS itself is in the social sciences. This can cause a methodologicalproblem when evaluating the environmental effects of EMSs. It is important to bear in mindthat the evidence, which is needed before we can conclude if EMS is a positive phenomenonfrom an environmental point of view, not need to be proved through a natural-scienceapproach (for example, the use of indicators). We recommend the use of more than one method, i.e., indicator, questionnaire and/or interview. An approach that employs thesemethods can also most probably be completed with softer, more subjective evaluations. A few attempts are the works of Eagan & Joeres (1997) and The Global EnvironmentManagement Initiative (GEMI, 1994). GEMI has developed a self-assessment program(ESAP) for measuring environmental performance. The program is mostly concerned with measuring environmental performance. ESAP has been further developed by Eagan & Joeres (1997). Their version, GMAT, makes it possible to create a graphical environmentalprofile for organizations, which might be very useful for benchmarking between differentorganizations or departments.

In addition to the recommendations of methods, we also recommend the third strategy stated in section 5.2.1 as the strategy to use; i.e., the rate of environmental performance changebefore and after an implementation in EMS-organizations compared to the rate ofenvironmental performance change in non-EMS organizations with data from the same time period.

6. Discussion of the different results in the evaluations

The different results can be explained through different kinds of hypothesis. First, the results can be explained through experiences with ISO 9000, which can serve as a good indicator ofthe experiences that can be expected with ISO 14001 (Melnyk et al., 2002). Wacker (1989) has noted that for firms with an ISO 9000, certification has generated benefits over a longer time period. More specifically, a US General Accounting Office study found that it took an average of two and a half years to realize significant bottom-line results attributable to TQM philosophies and methods such as ISO 9000 (Terziovski et al., 1999). Applying theseexperiences to ISO 14001, it can be argued that it may still be too early (while theevaluations were held 1997-2000) to draw any conclusions about the benefits from an ISO14001 certification. The authors of the MEPI-evaluation (MEPI, 2001) were surprised by theunexpected result and they concluded that it might be explained by the “lag effect”, whereby organizations with an EMS experience no immediate environmental performance benefit.The authors of the NDEMS evaluation (NDEMS, 2001) are of the opinion that the data must be collected over several years before any conclusion can be drawn about the benefits of anEMS. Therefore, they have not yet drawn any conclusions.

The different results from this meta-evaluation can also be explained by a “catching-upeffect”, whereby organizations that perceive themselves to be poor performers are those thatseek to implement a system as a way of reaching the best practice frontier. This can result in some organizations showing a more dramatic change due to the EMS introduction. But someorganizations that are willing to be evaluated may already be leaders in pollution preventionand environmental compliance, and are using EMS simply to document and institutionalizethose changes. The authors of the Japanese evaluation (Welch et al., 2002) also have anexplanation, which states that an adoption is initially a function of greenness, not the other way around. Further, they argue that firms are more likely to adopt an EMS if they aregreener in the first place. In other words, EMS adoption is a symptom of greenness rather than a stimulant to greenness, and the greening effect of EMS implementation is a slow process.

7. Conclusions

In this paper, three questions were asked:

What do these evaluation studies say about the environmental effects of an EMS?What methods are used in these evaluation studies?What methods are suitable when evaluating the environmental effects of EMSs?

The meta-evaluation, on which this paper is based, and the studies performed by Steger and Pecher (Steger (2000); Pecher (2002)) have not been able to give a conclusive answer regarding the environmental effects of EMSs. The results from the different evaluations inour meta-evaluation are not consistent and it is therefore not possible to suggest a causal linkage between an EMS and environmental performance. We, as well as others, have posited that it might be too early to see the results of the systems. On the other hand, theorganizations willing to be evaluated may already be leaders in pollution prevention andenvironmental compliance. One might also argue that it could actually be easier to besuccessful early after an EMS implementation, because organizations tend to focus onimprovement areas that are easily implemented. We cannot at this time determine which of these hypotheses is correct, since there are not enough empirical data to support either ofthem. Therefore, more data is needed both in the form of evaluations of primary empiricalmaterial and meta-evaluations of secondary data. However, we do not doubt that such studies will not be carried out. Additional studies will most probably be carried out, since the number of firms with ISO 14001-certification is rapidly increasing.

Three kinds of methods were used in the evaluations; namely, environmental indicator,questionnaire and interview. Some evaluators used more than one method in their evaluation. Another important consideration is the strategy for measuring the environmental effects of an EMS. In three of the studies evaluated in this paper, the authors have measuredthe environmental performance in organizations with an EMS and compared these data with results from organizations without an EMS. Only one (NDEMS, 2001) has measured the rate of environmental performance change in EMS organizations compared to the rate ofenvironmental performance change in non-EMS organizations. We believe that such a comparison is necessary to rule out other factors leading to improvements, and that the parameter one should compare is the rate the environmental performance change. Equally important as the need for more evaluations of EMSs is the search for ways of measuringenvironmental performance and the increase or decline in performance. Analysis of thestudies in this paper has shown that finding relevant indicators for environmental performance is no trivial task. In addition, it is far from certain that metric and financialindicators alone can measure the performance of organizations. Most probably, these hardindicators must be complemented with softer, more subjective evaluations. A few attempts ata softer approach in the form of the construction of evaluation forms have been made byEagan & Joeres (1997) and GEMI (1993).

One should always remember when executing these kinds of evaluations that an ISO 14001-certification or an EMAS-registration says anything about the level of environmentalperformance other than compliance with specification in laws and regulations. It is thereforepossible, and probably even quite common, that some non-certified/registered organizationsmaintain a higher performance level than certified/registered organizations.

References

AMMENBERG, J. (2001). How do standardized environmental management systems affect environmental performance and business? Licentiate thesis 907, Division of Environmental Technique and Management, Linköping: Linköping University.

DAHMSTRÖM, K. (1996). Från datainsamling till rapport, Lund: Studentlitteratur.

DYLLICK, T./HAMSCHMIDT, J. (2000). Wirksamheit und Leistung von Umweltmanagementsystemen, Zürich: Hochschulverlag AG.

EAGAN, P/JOERES, E. (1997). Development of a facility-based environmental performanceindicator related to sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 5(4), 269-278.

GLASS, G/McGAW, B/SMITH, M. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research, London: Sage Publications, Inc.

GLOBAL ENVIRONEMENTAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE. (1994). Environmental Self-Assessment Program, Washington, DC: GEMI.

JACKSON, S.L. (1997). The ISO Implementation guide: Creating an Integrated Management System, New York: Wiley.

KRUT, R/GLECKMAN, H. (1998). ISO 14001: A missed Opportunity for Sustainable Global Industrial Development, London: Earthscan Publications.

MELNYK, S./SROUFE, R./CALANTONE, R./MONTABON, F. (2002). Assessing theeffectiveness of US voluntary environmental programmes: an empirical study. InternationalJournal of Production Research, 40(8), 1853-1878.

MEPI. (2001). Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry. University of Sussex.

MORROW, D/RONDINELLI, D. (2002). Adopting Corporate Environmental Management Systems: Motivations and Results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. EuropeanManagement Journal, 20(2), 159-171.

NDEMS. (2001). National Database of Environmental Management Systems, (On line). Avalible at: http://www.eli.org/isopilots.htm, August 6, 2002.

PECHER, A./TSHULIK, A./MARTINUZZI, A. (2002). EMAS – an instrument for environmental communication (examining EMS-evaluation studies)

RIVERA-CAMINO, J. (2001). What motivates European firms to adopt Environmentalmanagement Systems? Eco-Management and Auditing, 8, 134-143.

RONDINELLI, D./VASTAG, G. (2000). Panacea, Common Sense, or Just a Label? The value of ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems. European Management Journal, 18(5),499-510.

STEGER, U. (2000). Environmental Management Systems: Empirical Evidence and FurtherPerspectives. European Management Journal, 18(1), 23-37.

STUFFLEBEAM, D.L. (2000). The Methodology of Meta-evaluations as Reflected in Meta-evaluations by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of PersonnelEvaluation in Education, 14(1), 95-125.

SUMMERS-RAINES, S. (2002). Benefits of ISO 14001 Certification. CorporateEnvironmental Strategy, 9(4), 418-426.

TERZIOVSKI, M./SOHAL, A./MOSS, S. (1999). Longitudinal analysis of quality management practises in Australian organizations. Total Quality Management, 10(6), 915-926.

WACKER, J. G. (1989). An integrative theory of strategic quality management: a cost-benefit framework for evaluating quality improvement programs. International Journal of Production Research, 27, 53-71.

WALLNER, H.P./SEBESTA, B./WOLF, P./SPIEGEL, C./LEITNER, T./SCHAUER, K. (2000).Evaluation der Cleaner Production Programme in Österreich. Graz.

WELCH, E. W./MORI, Y./AOYAGI-USUI, M. (2002). Voluntary adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: Mechanism, Stages and effects. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 43-62.

WIDMER, T. (2002). Evaluation Standards: Assuring Quality in Evaluation, (On-line). Available at http://www.sustainability.at/easy/, 2003, February 19.

ZACKRISSON, M./ENROTH, M./WIDING, A. (2000). Environmental Management Systems – Paper tiger or a powerful tool. Available at http://www.ivf.se/, 2002, December 5.

Paper V

The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of joint EMS and group certification: a Swedish case study

Zobel, T. (2005)

Submitted for publication

The ‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ of Joint EMS and Group Certification: A Swedish Case study

Thomas ZobelDivision of Quality & Environmental ManagementLuleå University of Technology SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden Tel.: +46(0)920 492134; mob.: +46(0)70 3433590; fax: +46(0)920 492160 E-mail address: thomas.zobel@ltu.se

ABSTRACTSmall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are collectively responsible for a significantportion of the total environmental burden worldwide. A common tool used by SMEs to improve their environmental performance is the environmental management system (EMS), which has the disadvantage that it has been developed with larger organisations in mind. A common approach used by Swedish SMEs to facilitate the implementation of an EMS is joint EMS and group certification. This paper evaluates this approach by means of a case study. It is found that the approach is effective for small and micro-sized companies in achieving ISO 14001-certification as fast and cost effective as possible. A few short cuts including joint environmental policy and objectives and insufficient environmental organisation are however threatening to undermine the trustworthiness of the approach. Notwithstanding these flaws, however, it must be concluded that the joint EMS approach is a good alternative for small and micro-sized companies.

Keywords: Environmental management system (EMS), joint EMS, group certification, ISO 14001, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME), small companies

Introduction

Previous research has shown that small and medium-sized enterprises1 (SMEs) are importantnot only from a financial point of view but also because the sector has a considerable impacton the environment (Fay, 2000; Hillary, 2004; Hoevenagel & Wolters, 2000) The extent of this impact is not known, but SMEs are collectively responsible for a significant portion of the total environmental burden (de Bruijn & Lulofs, 2000; ECOTEC, 2000) worldwide. The extent of this environmental impact and the fact that many SMSs are seldom inspected by environmental authorities and therefore probably have rather poor control over their impacts(Ammenberg et al., 1999), make it important for SMEs to also have access to tools that canhelp them to reach compliance as well as structure and improve their environmental activities.One common tool that can be applicable for SMEs is the environmental management system (EMS).

1 According to the European Union’s (EU) definition, a company is considered to be a small and medium-sizedenterprise (SME) if it has fewer than 250 employees and either the annual turnover is less than 40 million eurosor the annual balance sheet total does not exceed 27 million euros. The company must also be an independententerprise, i.e. 25% or more of the capital or voting rights can not be owned by larger enterprises (CEC, 1996)

1

SME and EMS

EMS is widely presented as a suitable tool for larger companies, preferably those with direct environmental impact, i.e. manufacturing companies (Wells & Galbraith, 1999). It is also clear that EMS has predominantly been adopted by large companies (Merritt, 1998). The suitability of EMS and the most common standard for EMS, ISO 14001, for SMEs has been the subject of frequent debate since ISO 14001 was published in 1996 (Gerstenfeld & Roberts, 2000). It has even been suggested that the viewpoints and attitudes of SMEs were nottaken into account at all when creating the standard and therefore it is ill-suited to these companies (Gleckman & Krut, 1997). Even if the suitability of EMS according to the specifications in ISO 14001 can be questioned, some SMEs find it worthwhile to use resources and time to implement a system and certify the company.

Many SMEs complain about the complexity of the ISO 14001-standard and the high costs for system implementation and third party certification. Indeed, the experienced complexity of the standard and the lack of human and financial resources are often the reasons why manySMEs choose not to adopt an EMS (Hillary, 2004; Pimenova & van der Vorst, 2004). However, if an EMS approach can be tailored to SMEs, it has been shown that a majority of them would consider implementing one (Williams et al., 2000).

Approaches to facilitate EMS implementation in SMEs

To overcome the obstacles for EMS implementation, SMEs have a number of approaches to choose from. These have been developed in order to facilitate the implementation of EMS in SMSs. They can be classified in four categories (Dalhammar, 2000):

1. Incremental approaches with rewards on the road towards certification (Swedish Environmental Management Council, 2004; The Acorn Trust, 2004);

2. Mentoring (Tunnessen, 2000; Wells & Galbraith, 1999); 3. Standardised solutions for EMS implementation (Miljöledarna Ciconia AB, 2004;

Entropy International, 2004); 4. Joint EMS and group certification (Ammenberg et al., 1999; Ammenberg & Hjelm,

2003).

This paper focuses solely on the joint EMS and group certification approach since it has been a common approach in recent years and it seems as if its popularity is growing among SMEs(Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2003). The interested reader can find more information about the other approaches and examples of projects involving the approaches in Dalhammar (2000) and the references in the listing above. In Sweden, joint EMS and group certification has received considerable attention and a great number of company groups in Sweden now work with shared EMSs, or are planning to do so in the near future. In May 2002, 24 industrial estates, involving 450 companies and 7 industrial groups, had used the joint approach in Sweden (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2002). These figures can be compared to the total number of ISO 14001-certified companies which amounted to 2,4642 at the end of 2002 (Environcert, 2004), indicating that approximately 20% of all ISO 14001-certified companies in Swedenhad used the joint approach. The joint EMS and group certification approach as it was originally used in Sweden is presented in more detail in the following section.

2 The information is continuously collected from approved certification bodies. The statistics does not take intoaccount companies that have lost their certificate during the year.

2

Joint EMS and group certification

The most practical and probably the most rewarding type of joint EMS and group certification is one that includes a number of companies within a limited geographical area, e.g. an industrial estate (Dalhammar, 2000). In a joint EMS, certain parts of the system are commonto the participating companies, but some elements are specific to each individual company. If the companies choose to become ISO 14001 certified, they can do so simultaneously by being audited by the same certification body. This is often referred to as group certification3. Each company has an individual EMS that fulfils the requirements in ISO 14001 and each companyholds its own ISO 14001-certificate. These individual EMSs make up the joint EMS.

Implementation of a joint EMS

When implementing a joint EMS, an environmental group is formed. This group consists of one representative from each participating company. The group selects a few individuals whoform a steering committee. The committee in turn selects a central coordinator. A support group supports the central committee and assists the company coordinators. The support group can consist of consultants and other stakeholders, e.g. financiers, municipalities and regional authorities. Lately, however, many joint EMS projects in Sweden have been run without the support group function. The central coordinator can be selected from the participating companies, but could also be someone from outside the group. He or she is responsible for performing a variety of tasks such as preparing documents, identifying and communicating common legal requirements, raising interest and commitment, calling meetings, processing minutes and planning environmental training. In addition, the central coordinator also functions as head of the steering committee. The steering committee is responsible for the implementation of the EMS and for planning environmental audits. The committee also issues new system documents and reviews existing documents, focusing ondocuments that are common to the group. Another important activity is the evaluation oftraining needs and training content. As with the support group, some joint EMS projects in Sweden have been run without a steering committee. The company coordinators in the EMS group meet regularly to make various decisions, to organise additional training and provide information about and discuss new or revised documents.

Unique elements in a joint EMS

The documentation of the joint EMS consists of an environmental manual that is common to all companies as well as a company-specific manual and a company-specific compilation of records. For the majority of the documents in the company-specific manuals, the central coordinator prepares document templates. Formally, the individual EMSs at the companiesare similar to a normal EMS. However, a few unique elements are typical for joint EMS andgroup certification. These elements are:

3 After this study was performed, SWEDAC has clearly stated that officially there is no such thing as ‘groupcertification’. However, the term is still used by consultants and companies involved in joint EMS projects.

3

Joint environmental organisationJoint system administration and documentationExtensive environmental training Joint environmental policy and objectivesJoint internal environmental auditsJoint third party audits

Previous research on joint EMS and group certification

The joint EMS and group certification approach was initially presented by Ammenberg et al. (1999). In two following publications covering the same group of companies, the business and environmental effects of the joint EMS were evaluated (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2002; Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2003). The researchers state that the joint EMS approach is a cost-effective approach for EMS implementation in SMEs. In addition they claim that the EMS has led to positive business effects overall and that it has improved the environmental situation in general. However, these studies have not, in detail, studied if the effects of a joint EMS differfrom the effects of EMSs that are traditionally implemented. Since certain elements of the EMS are shared by several organisations, one might expect the joint EMS approach toinfluence the effects of the individual systems differently to what the effects would have been had a traditional implementation approach been employed. EMSs implemented with the jointapproach might also be seen by stakeholders as a ‘light’ version of an EMS, which will influence their credibility. The unique elements listed above are presented and evaluated inmore detail in the section on the study’s findings below. In addition, the cost efficiency of the approach is also evaluated.

Aim and limitations of the study

The aim of this study is to describe the advantages and shortcomings of joint EMS and group ISO 14001-certification compared to a traditional implementation approach4. The findings in this study are valid only for small and micro-sized companies and not the entire SME-sector,since the studied companies classify as small or micro5. The usefulness and effects of implementing an EMS will probably differ considerably for companies in different sizecategories, in different lines of businesses and with various environmental impacts (Hillary,2004).

Methodology

In order to achieve the aim of this study, a single-case study was performed. The case study research strategy is a suitable strategy since the study is of an exploratory nature (Yin, 1994). The joint EMS project that was chosen was suitable since the project started concurrently asthe planning of this study. Hence, it was possible to follow the whole project from start to

4 A traditional approach to EMS implementation and ISO 14001-certification is defined in this paper as systemimplementation in the form of a time-limited project carried out by and for a single company with limited co-operation and/or benchmarking with other companies and with various amount of external help, e.g. consultants.5 According to the EU´s definition, a “medium” enterprise employs 50 to 249 people, a “small” enterpriseemploys 10 to 49 people and a “micro” enterprise employs less than 10 people (CEC, 1996). 2 out of 15companies in the case study analysed in this paper have more than 49 employees, but their sizes of 55 and 60employees give them approximately the same characteristics as small enterprises.

4

finish. The units of analysis were the elements of an EMS that are unique for the joint EMS and group certification approach.

Case description

In the autumn of 2000, a firm of consultants initiated a project to implement and certify EMSsin small and micro-sized enterprises on an industrial estate in Sweden. The project was partly financed by EU Structural Funds Objective 1 and other local financiers. 15 companies on the estate joined the project and formed an environmental group with a total of 255 employees.The companies represent a wide range of businesses, including manufacturing, waste management, logistics and consulting. The company data is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Members in the environmental group studied in this paperCompany Code

NACELine of business No. of

emp.Ann. turnover in million euros

A 25210 Manufacture of plastic plates, sheets, tubesand profiles

11 6.3

B 45211 General construction of buildings 6 5.6C 60240 Freight transport by road 22 2,0D 51879 Wholesale of machinery for industry, trade

and navigation n.e.c.30 33.8

E 31100 Manufacture of electric motors, generatorsand transformers

8 14.9

F 36140 Manufacture of other furniture 4 2.7G 45310 Installation of electrical wiring and fittings 11 21.1H 90021 Collection and treatment of other waste 55 60.5I 22250 Ancillary activities related to printing 7 5.1J 36630 Other manufacturing n.e.c. 7 7.9K 28110 Manufacture of metal structures and parts of

structures8 8.6

L 7420229569

Construction and other engineering activitiesManufacture of various other special purposemachinery n.e.c.

14 18.1

M 6024071100

Freight transport by roadRenting of automobiles

60 74,.3

N 45310 Installation of electrical wiring and fittings 1 UnknownO 85200 Veterinary activities 11 12.1

The project started in October 2000 and ended in February 2002 when all companies in the environmental group earned their ISO 14001-certificate. During the project period, representatives from the participating companies met once a month. Representatives from the consulting firm chaired these meetings. During the time between the meetings, the firmscarried out home assignments that together added up to complete EMSs. Every company hadto appoint an environmental coordinator that attended the meetings and was responsible for the activities included in the home assignments. In addition to the monthly meetings, a steering committee also held meetings on a regular basis when they needed to discuss theongoing project. Apart from the project manager (representative from the consulting firm), the steering committee consisted of representatives of the municipality and the regional employment agency.

5

Data collection within the case

Empirical data was collected through interviews, study of project documentation and participation at project meetings and training sessions. The interviews were conducted as open interviews with representatives from five of the participating companies, two projectcoordinators, the project manager and two environmental trainers. Different interview formatswere used for the different groups of interviewees. The representatives from the companiesrepresented companies of different line of businesses and sizes. The document studied included project planning documentation, environmental training material, minutes from project meetings and application forms for external financing. Some of the documentedprocedures and instructions that is part of the EMSs were also studied. Notes were taken from steering group meetings, environmental group meetings and training sessions.

Analysis of data

Analysis of qualitative data includes three separate steps: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this case study, no effort was made to reduce the amount of data once it had been collected. Data were displayed mostly in the formof narrative text. All data were structured into different arrays, which corresponded to the unique elements of the joint EMS approach. Four available modes of analysis are available for analysis of qualitative data; pattern matching, explanation building, time-series analysis and programme logic models (Yin, 1994). Pattern-matching, in which empirical based patterns are compared with a predicted one, was found to be the most suitable analysis mode in this case study.

Results

Joint environmental organisation

The project studied was organised slightly differently compared to the original set-up. Insteadof one single central coordinator working together with a support group, three coordinators supported the 15 companies. This made it possible for the coordinators to share experiences and also to function as backup for each other. By using more than one coordinator in a joint EMS project, it becomes less vulnerable, provided the coordinators communicate well with each other. Two of the three coordinators working in the project were consultants employed by locally based consulting firms. This meant they had a good understanding of the local conditions, e.g. requirements from local and regional environmental authorities. The companies in the environmental group felt the coordinators’ local knowledge was very positive. This local connection is probably even more important in the case of projectsinvolving SMEs since they are usually sceptical of outside help (Ghobadian & Gallear, 1996). Most of the companies thought that they received just the right amount of help from thecoordinators. The group showed great confidence in the coordinators and they were generallythought of as competent in the field of EMS. After ISO 14001-certification and the end of the project, the three coordinators were replaced by one central coordinator working part time.The group was unable to employ someone from within. Instead they hired a consultant as their common environmental coordinator.

6

Joint system administration and documentation

The environmental group’s joint EMS documentation consisted of a common manual,company-specific manuals and company-specific compilation of records. The central coordinator prepared documentary templates in order to simplify document completion for most of the documents. These templates provided all the individual EMSs with a similardesign. One of the company coordinators considered this templated documentation to be a prerequisite for speeding up the EMS implementation process. The templates saved a lot oftime not only because the companies did not have to create the documentation from scratch, but also since they as also acted as ready-made instructions.

Extensive environmental training

According to the ISO 14001 specifications, or at least how they were interpreted by the project manager, environmental training for all personnel was mandatory and as a result all employees were scheduled to attend training sessions for a total of 30 hours. The training programme included knowledge of the different parts of an EMS as well as more basic subjects such as ecology and sustainable development. The purpose of this relatively widetraining approach was so that the participants could use their diploma after successfullyfinishing the training as the first step towards an upper secondary school qualification. However, the training was adapted as far as possible to the process of implementing an EMS. In addition to the theoretical 30 hours, more training was given in close connection to the implementation of the respectively EMS in each company.

The training element is a significant part of the joint EMS approach. In this case, 30 hours must be considered as extensive for environmental training. A survey concerning environmental training in British and German companies showed that common environmentaltraining for all employees seldom exceeded eight hours (North & Daig, 1996). The extensive training is considered by both the project manager and the companies to perhaps be thestrongest element in a joint EMS approach. The more practical training component, e.g. the system implementation training, was experienced as the most rewarding part by the participants.

The company coordinators received the same training as all other employees and a littleadditional training in the form of exercises at the environmental group meetings. A considerable gap in competence between the central coordinator and the company coordinators was observed at the environmental group meetings, where discussions and questions were rare. It became clear that the company coordinators completely trusted thecentral coordinator, which naturally had a positive impact on the project. However, as the situation is now, the company coordinators are dependent to a great extent on the competenceof the central coordinator and generally complain that they have to work alone with theircompany-specific part of the joint EMS, and that it is hard to get more people involved in environmental activities.

Joint environmental policy and objectives

All companies within the environmental group used the same template for their environmentalpolicy. The only elements that differed between the different policies were a description ofeach company’s activities and the significant environmental aspects. Despite the similaritiesbetween the policies, they were considered by the third party auditors as individual since they

7

were set and recorded by top management in each company. The same procedure was used when establishing the environmental objectives, the difference being that the objectives wereformulated exactly the same for all companies. The objectives were also considered to be individual since they were set by each company. With the objectives as basis, more specific targets were developed, set and recorded by each company.

Both the policies and the objectives referred to the four criteria for sustainability, firstdeveloped by Karl-Henrik Robèrt and John Holmberg around 1990 and then further developed in the next few years (Robèrt, 1992; Holmberg, 1998). These criteria are presented below.

In order for a society to be sustainable, nature’s functions and diversity must not be systematically:1. Subject to increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the earth’s crust 2. Subject to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society 3. Impoverished by over-harvesting or other forms of ecosystem manipulation

And 4. Resources must be used fairly and efficiently in order to meet basic human needs

worldwide

These criteria were not uniquely used within the studied organisations or the joint EMSapproach, but they are used in many of the joint EMS projects performed in Sweden. This is probably because two of the consulting firms working with joint EMS implementationcooperate with the Natural Step Foundation in which Karl-Henrik Robèrt and John Holmbergare active. Hence they deserve to be commented on in this paper. The policies in theenvironmental group merely referred to the four criteria for substantiality but the objectives were actually just a rewritten version of the criteria.

It became clear when studying the policy implementation in the environmental group that the companies considered the more specific targets as the real goals they should work towards and hopefully achieve. This fact indicates that environmental policy implementation within small companies using the joint EMS approach is not very different from the process in larger companies using the traditional approach, since the same focus on the targets is common in larger companies (Zobel, 2001).

Joint internal environmental audits

An annual plan for internal environmental audits was created by the central coordinator. All system elements were audited in all the companies during the year. The internal auditors were selected company coordinators from the companies in the environmental group. In addition to the common environmental training, the internal auditors received 24 hours of specific auditor training and they had to participate in two audits as observers before they were allowed to perform audits on their own. In general, there is no difference between the procedures for internal environmental audits in the joint EMS approach and those in a traditional EMS. But one positive difference is that the internal auditors come from different companies andperform audits at all companies except their own. This audit process assures auditor independence and the companies can benefit from non-conformances found by new eyes not accustomed to the company activities.

8

Joint third-party audits

Normally a company has to be audited by third-party auditors at least once every year, but theSwedish authority that approves certification bodies, SWEDAC, initially agreed to audits twice every three years being sufficient for companies that are members of an environmentalgroup6. The audit frequency has since then increased to a third-party visit once every year as a result of SWEDAC changing its standpoint on the definition of group certification. At the time for the group certification project in this study, SWEDAC allowed third-party auditors to treat group certification in the same way they handled multi-site certification7. Since group certification involves separate companies, SWEDAC feels it cannot be considered the same asmulti-site certification. If the third-party auditors are forced to plan and carry out their auditsfor each single company within the joint EMS, they will spend a substantial amount of timeauditing the same processes and documentation over and over again and will probably find it hard to make use of all the time spent during the audits. The problem seems to be a lack of formal guidelines for the group certification format.

Certification audit for the joint EMS at the environmental group was carried out in December2001. The audit resulted in 98 improvement points spread over the 15 companies, which has to be regarded as a good result. No hold points were noted. An overview of the results from the certification audit is presented in Table 2. The number and character of the non-conformities indicates that EMS implementation according to the joint EMS in this case did not result in a different outcome to that which would have been achieved using a traditional implementation approach.

Table 2. Overview of the nonconformities and notations from the certification audit of the joint EMS at theenvironmental group studied in this paper

Section in ISO 14001 Summary of non-conformities/notations4.3.1 Environmental aspects Identification of aspects, assessment of aspect4.3.2 Legal and other requirements Missing environmental permit from hired contractor for

handling, transport and treatment of waste, identification ofrelevant laws and regulations, a few cases of non-compliance

4.3.3 Objectives and targets Non-relevant indicators4.4.2 Training, awareness and competence Non-satisfactory employee awareness, lack of training

regarding hazardous wastes and goods, non-satisfactorytraining for new employees, training not satisfactorydocumented

4.4.3 Communication Undertaking regarding informing certification body afterserious accidents are missing, documentation of communication is non-satisfactory

4.4.5 Document control Lack of document control4.4.6 Operational control Nonconformities regarding handling, storage and labelling

of chemicals, lack of safety data sheets, possibleimprovements in purchasing procedures

4.4.7 Emergency preparedness and response All risks not identified, lack in labelling and equipment4.5.1 Monitoring and measurement Error in pollution measurements, lack of follow-up of

hazardous waste, no procedure for measurement of significant aspects

6 The reduction in audit frequency was motivated by the argument that the companies in an environmental groupregularly meet to exchange experiences and that the companies cooperate when conducting internalenvironmental audits.7 In multi-site certification a number of sites within one single company have a common EMS and are certified at the same time.

9

Cost efficiency

The costs for certifying a company according to ISO 14001 can be assigned to three basic categories: costs relating to necessary technical measures to guarantee the improvement of environmental performance, costs relating to EMS implementation, and costs incurred in obtaining third-party verification (Biondi et al., 2000). The last two of these categories will be addressed here since they were the dominating costs for the companies in the environmentalgroup.

The costs for implementation of EMS can be further divided into three subcategories: consulting help, training and internal work. A stipulated amount was paid by the companies to finance the services provided by the central coordinators. For the members of the environmental group, this amount was 318 euros per employee. The total training costs, including both common training for all employees and training for internal auditors, amounted to 842 euros per employee. The total training cost could at first glance be considered to befairly high but considering the extent of the training, it could on the contrary be considered to be low. It should be noted that the amount of 842 euros is only the direct cost for the training. It also costs the companies to send their employees on training since the alternative would be that they stayed at home producing goods or providing services. These indirect costs fortraining are hard to estimate and no attempt is therefore made in this paper. It is equally difficult to estimate the amount of internal work involved. Some authors claim that because companies interpret the costs to be associated with EMS implementation differently, estimatesof these costs are so inexact as to become meaningless (Freimann & Schwedes, 2000; Freimann & Walther, 2001). Due to the difficulties, no attempt to estimate these costs is madein this study. According to Biondi et al. (2000), these costs far exceed the direct costs for hiring consultants and third party auditors for certification. These findings are supported by Schylander & Martinuzzi (2004) who found that indirect implementation costs constitute 67%of the total costs for building the system.

The costs for obtaining third-party certification are much easier to estimate than the indirect costs, mainly because the relevant figures can be found on a small number of invoices madeout by the third-party auditor. In the case of the environmental group in this study, the total certification cost amounted to 18,400 euros for all the companies within the group. To examine the cost-efficiency of the group certification approach, the certification costs for the environmental group were compared to other available studies that included certification costs associated with a traditional certification process. Table 3 shows an overview of thiscomparison.

Table 3. Comparison of certification costs using traditional certification and group certificationStudies Comparison of certification costs Cost factorLöfqvist et al. (2000)This study

0.27% of annual sales0,067% of annual sales

3.9

Johannson (1997)This study

€131 per employee€72 per employee

1.8

Schylander & Martinuzzi (2004)This study

€3789 for company with 28 employees€1182 for company with 30 employees

3.2

Zackrisson et al. (2000) This study

€7659 for company with 50 employees€1728 for company with 55 employees

4.4

Average cost factor: 3.3

10

The comparisons are made for companies of approximately the same size. The size factor is important in this comparison since it is the most influential certification cost factor. Smallercompanies pay proportionately more per employee or annual sales than larger companies. The cost comparison shows that a traditional certification process is more than three times as expensive for small and micro-sized companies.

Discussion

Shortcomings

It was found in the case study that the company coordinators completely trusted the central coordinator and that the competence gap between the central coordinator and the companycoordinators is rather extensive. This gap probably makes the companies dependent on the competence of the central coordinator. This finding is in accordance with Ammenberg et al. (1999) stating that too much of the environmental responsibility is laid on the centralcoordinator. This consultant dependency is a well known problem in EMS implementation(Axelsson et al., 2003). It has also been reported as a problem and in quality managementsystem implementation in SMSs (Gustafsson et al., 2001). The dependency on the central coordinator makes the joint EMS vulnerable. If this coordinator is hired from a consultancy firm, the vulnerability is further increased. A person from inside the group would probably have been preferable since he or she would have better understood the conditions under whichthe companies work. An inside coordinator would have less expert knowledge than a consultant, but this might actually be an advantage in the case of a joint EMS because thecoordinator would have to obtain help and assistance from the company coordinators and thereby involve more people in the environmental activities and development of the EMS.The major advantage of hiring an external coordinator is that this person is independent of all companies within the environmental group. If the coordinator is also employed by one of the participating companies, there would be a risk of this person focusing more on his or hers own company.

Using the same templates for environmental policies and objectives might cause some problems. Other studies emphasise the importance of engaging employees in the work with the system and especially the policy implementation process as a way of ensuring commitment to the system (Darnall et al., 2000; Gustafsson et al., 2001; Zobel, 2001) One might expect the fast-tracked process to have lead to a lack of understanding and commitmentto these important system components. Obviously, the implementation of a common policy and common objectives is done in this way to save time. But it is questionable if this procedure saves time in the long run. A recent study has shown that the implementation ofenvironmental aspects, objectives, targets and policy, preferably with a high level of employee involvement, is important for creating commitment for environmental activities(Zobel, 2001). The companies should probably have been given more time to develop their own views of what was most important for them and how they should tackle this. It is the nature of the joint EMS approach to simplify the system implementation to save time, but policy implementation is not a process in which one should take shortcuts. All companies and especially small ones must normally be wary of taking shortcuts when implementing an EMS because this might be seen from the outside as if they have received their certification too easily by implementing a ‘light’ version of ISO 14001. This might lead to a lack of trust in that company and its activities as well as in the standard. It is questionable if objectives andpolicies set according to the current procedure should be allowed considering thespecifications in ISO 14001. A policy shall express a company’s individual vision and

11

fundamental values, but it is hard to see that in the case of the policies in the environmentalgroup. In more recent joint EMS projects, the policies of the participating companies have been more individually formulated as a response to criticism from third-party auditors.

Another problematic fact regarding the environmental objectives is their close link with thefour criteria for sustainability. Establishing the objectives this way makes the objectives fuzzy and hard to grasp both for the employees and especially for stakeholders who probably have limited experience of such abstract criteria. However, all employees have come across thecriteria during their training sessions and therefore have a somewhat better understanding than people in general. In addition, it is not obvious from the way the objectives are worded that the specifications in ISO 14001 saying that “When establishing and reviewing its objectives, an organisation shall consider the legal and other requirements, its significant environmentalaspects, its technological options and its financial, operational and business requirements, and the views of interested parties” have been considered when setting the objectives.

Another weakness of the joint EMS approach at the time for the study in this paper was thereduced time the third-party auditors spend at each company within the environmental group. Third-party audits and the non-conformities that they find are an important part of the system,even if the certification bodies certainly do not want to be part of the EMS. The auditors are usually good at finding improvement opportunities that the companies cannot see for themselves. In addition, third-party audits help keep both managers and employees on their toes concerning environmental issues (Wells & Galbraith, 1999; Rondinelli & Vastag, 2000; Zackrisson et al., 2000). From a performance point of view, it could therefore be a disadvantage to have longer periods between the follow-up third-party audits. However, after the time for the study in this paper, SWEDAC changed their position on joint EMSs. Today, the third-party auditors spend the same amount of time at companies that are members of an environmental group as they do at companies which has a normal EMS. This created a newproblem. If the third party audits are forced to plan and carry out their audits individually foreach single company within the joint EMS, they will spend a lot of time auditing the sameprocesses and documentation over and over again and they will probably find it hard to makeuse of all the time spent during the audits. The problem seams to be that formal guidelines are missing for the group certification format.

Advantages

One might expect the simplification of the system documentation to reduce employee awareness and commitment. However, the company coordinators did not experience the ready-made document templates and the close similarities between the different systems as aproblem. Hence, since the simplification of system documentation saves considerableamounts of time and effort, it can be seen as an advantage.

The extensive environmental training was considered by all parties in the joint EMS project as perhaps the strongest element in the approach. Support for their opinion is voiced in several publications where training is claimed to be an extremely important element in theimplementation process and for the success of the EMS (Tack, 1999; Wilson, 1998a; Wilson,1998b). These studies show that a well executed training programme will facilitate the implementation of the other elements of the system. The company coordinators claimed that the more practical training components were the most rewarding part. These viewpoints are shared by training participants in another Swedish study (Pers, 2000). As stated above, the competence gap between the central coordinator and the company coordinators was fairly

12

great, making the companies depend on the competence of the central coordinator. In order to make the system more stable, the company coordinators could be given the opportunity to go through additional training. To be able to develop the individual systems, companycoordinators probably need greater environmental competence. The lack of interest from employees and managers constitutes another reason for giving the company coordinators additional training. If the costs for this training are an obstacle, the training hours given to all employees could be reduced and more time could be given to the coordinators. This should not effect the environmental performance too much since some of the employees are probablynot involved in activities leading to any significant environmental impact.

It was found in this case study that the internal auditors performed environmental audits at all other companies within the environmental group but their own. This is an advantage since the auditors automatically are independent from the company they audit. The same independency is hard to reach when using a traditional implementation approach. The internal environmental audit procedures could be further improved if all companies had at least one internal auditor and perhaps other employees in addition to the company coordinators could be selected as auditors in order to involve more people in the environmental activities. This is important since a high level of involved employees has been proven to be a significant success factor for realising environmental performance improvements in SMEs and for successful EMS implementation (Jones & Welford, 1997; Wells & Galbraith, 1999).

It is clear that the joint EMS and group certification approach lead to significant cost savings compared to a traditional approach for the studied companies in this paper. The reduced costswere possible because of joint purchasing and splitting of costs for third party audits, shared internal auditors, coordinated training and shared system administration and documentation. It has been shown that the certification costs for traditional certification are three times as highas for group certification. However, these costs are not the main costs for implementing andcertifying an EMS. The indirect costs far exceed the certification costs (Biondi et al., 2000; Schylander & Martinuzzi, 2004). Unfortunately, the indirect certification costs are not known for the joint EMS project studied in this paper. However, considering that the companies inthe environmental group share most system elements and thereby save considerable amountsof time, the cost savings for the internal activities are probably as great as they are for the third-party certification. The cost saving factor of three can be compared to the findings by Ammenberg et al. (1999). They report cost saving of approximately 50 % for a whole joint EMS project.

Conclusions

Despite a few unfortunate shortcuts and an environmental organisation in need of reviewing, it must be concluded that the joint EMS and group certification approach is a good alternative for small and micro-sized companies. Their environmental performance will not be better nor will the marketing value of the ISO 14001 certificate be any higher compared to using a traditional implementation approach, but it will be much cheaper. According to most of thecompany coordinators in the environmental group, their companies would have implementedand certified an EMS even if they had not joined the projects, but it would have taken muchlonger time and would also have been postponed to a later date. This is probably the greatest advantage with the joint EMS approach; that it encourages small and micro companies to stepup and decide to adopt an EMS instead of deciding against it. Hence, joint EMS and group certification could help to significantly reduce the environmental impact caused by theactivities of these companies.

13

Lastly, it should be noted that the concept of joint EMS and group certification is a good alternative for achieving ISO 14001-certification in Sweden, due to the relatively highopenness among companies. The level of transparency might be different in other countries. This openness between companies is a prerequisite for the approach to be successful.

Acknowledgement

The author offers his thanks to the Kempe Foundations for their financial support to the research.

References

Ammenberg J, Börjesson B, Hjelm O. 1999. Joint EMS and group certification: a cost-effective route for SMEsto achieve ISO 14001. Greener Management International 28 (Winter 1999): 23-31.

Ammenberg J, Hjelm O. 2002. The connection between environmental management systems and continualenvironmental performance improvements. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9 (2): 183-192.

Ammenberg J, Hjelm O. 2003. Tracing business and environmental effects of environmental managementsystems - a study of networking small and medium-sized enterprises using a joint environmental managementsystem. Business Strategy and the environment 12 (3): 163-174.

Axelsson U, Almgren R, Hjelm O. 2003. Effektivare Miljöledningssystem – En Studie om Brister, Behov ochMöjligheter till Förbättring. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm. (In Swedish)

Biondi V, Frey M, Iraldo F. 2000. Environmental management systems and SMEs: motivations, opportunitiesand barriers related to EMAS and ISO 14001 implementation. Greener Management International 29 (Spring2000): 55-70.

CEC. 1996. Council Recommendation of 3 April 1996 Concerning the Definition of Small and Medium-SizedEnterprises. OJ, L107, vol. 39, 30 May 1996: Brussels.

Dalhammar CJ. 2000. Implementation and Certification of Environmental Management System in SmallEnterprises: Approaches and Limitations. IIIEE Reports 2000:22. Lund University: Lund.

Darnall N, Rigling Gallagher D, Andrews RNL & Amaral D. 2000. Environmental Management Systems:Opportunities for Improved Environmental Strategy? Environmental Quality Management 9 (3): 1-9.

de Bruijn T, Lulofs K. 2000. Driving small and medium-sized enterprises towards environmental management:policy implementation in networks’, In Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: BusinessImperatives, Hillary R (ed). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK; 263-274.

ECOTEC Research & Consulting LTD. 2000. Report on SMEs and the Environment. Final report prepared forthe European Commission, DG Environment, February 2000, 60; 44-48.

Entropy International. (2004). Available at: http://www.entropy-international.com. Access: July 22, 2004.

Environcert. 2004. http//www.environcert.com [September 8, 2004]

Fay C. 2000. Foreword. In Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives,Hillary R (ed). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK; 9-10.

Freimann J, Schwedes R. 2000. EMAS experience in German companies: a survey on empirical studies. Eco-Management and Auditing, 7 (3): 99-105.

Freimann J. Walther M. 2001. The impacts of corporate environmental management systems: a comparison of EMAS and ISO 14001. Greener Management International, 36 (Winter 2001): 91-103.

14

Gerstenfeld A, Roberts H. 2000. Size matters: barriers and prospects for environmental management in smalland medium-sized enterprises. In Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: BusinessImperatives, Hillary R (ed). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield; 106-118.

Gleckman H, Krut R. 1997. Neither international nor standard: the limits of ISO 14001 as an instrument of global environmental management. In ISO 14001 and Beyond: Environmental Management Systems in the RealWorld, Sheldon C (ed). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield; 45-59.

Ghobadian A, Gallear DN. 1996. Total quality management in SME’s. International Journal of ManagementScience 24 (1): 83-106.

Gustafsson R, Klefsjö B, Berggren E, Granfors-Wellemets U. 2001. Experiences from implementing ISO 9000in small enterprises – a study of Swedish organisations. The TQM Magazine 13 (4): 232-246.

Hillary R. 2004. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production12 (6): 561-569.

Hoevenagel R, Wolters T. 2000. Small and medium-sized enterprises, environmental policies and the supportingrole of intermediate organisations in the Netherlands. Greener Management International 30 (Summer 2000):61-69.

Holmberg J. 1998. Backcasting: a natural step in operationalising sustainable development. GreenerManagement International 23 (Autumn 1998): 30-51.

Jones D, Welford R. 1997. Culture change, pluralism and participation, In Corporate EnvironmentalManagement: Culture and Organisations, Welford R (ed). Earthscan Publications: London; 127-151.

Merritt QJ. 1998. EM into SME won´t go? Attitudes, awareness and practices in the London Borough ofCroydon. Business Strategy and the Environment 7 (2): 90-100.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications:Thousand Oaks, CA.

Miljöledarna Ciconia AB. (2004). Available at: http://www.ciconia.se. Access: July 12, 2004. (In Swedish)

North K, Daig S. 1996. Environmental training in British and German companies, In Greening People: HumanResources and Environmental Management, Wehrmeyer W (ed). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield.

Pers J. 2000. Miljöledningssystem i Statlig Förvaltning: En Undersökning av Organiseringens ochLegitimitetens Betydelse för Framgångsrik Implementering. Uppsala. (In Swedish)

Pimenova P, van der Vorst R. 2004. The role of support programmes and policies in improving SMEsenvironmental performance in developed and transition economies. Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (6): 549-559.

Robèrt K-H, 1992. The Necessary Step. Ekerlids Förlag: Falun.

Rondinelli D, Vastag G. 2000. Panacea, common sense, or just a label? – The value of ISO 14001 environmentalmanagement systems. European Management Journal 18 (5): 499-510.

Schylander E, Martinuzzi A. 2004. ISO 14001 – experiences, effects and future challenges – a national study inAustria, In Environmental Effects and Organizational Experiences of Environmental Management Systems,Schylander E. Licentiate thesis 2004:31. Luleå University of Technology: Luleå.

Swedish Environmental Management Council. 2004. Available at: http://www.miljostyrning.se. Access: August2, 2004. (In Swedish)

Tack J-P. 1999. Environmental management systems and stakeholders: the case of the Belgian electricity sector.Greener Management International 28 (Winter 1999): 50-58.

15

The Acorn Trust. (2004). Available at: http://www.theacorntrust.org. Access: August 2, 2004.

Tunnessen III, W.W. (2000). The mentoring of small and medium-sized enterprises: insights from experiences inthe United States, In: Hillary, R. (ed.) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: BusinessImperatives. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing: pp. 219-232.

Wells RP, Galbraith D. 1999. Proyecto Guadalajara. Greener Management International 28 (Winter 1999): 90-103.

Williams H, van Hooydonk A, Dingle P, Annandale D. 2000 Developing tailored environmental managementsystems for small business. Eco-Management and Auditing 7 (3): 106-113.

Wilson RC. 1998. EMS success depends on thorough employee training. Pollution Engineering 30 (9): 47.

Wilson RC. 1998. EMS awareness will define success of EMS. Pollution Engineering 30 (10): 43-44.

Yin RK. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second edition. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,CA.

Zackrisson M, Enroth M, Widing A. 2000. Environmental Management Systems – Paper Tiger or a PowerfulTool. IVF Industriforskning och Utveckling AB (Industrial Research and Development Corporation): Mölndal.

Zobel T. 2001. Environmental Policy Deployment in an Environmental Management System Context:Experiences from Swedish Organizations. Licentiate thesis 2001:49. Luleå University of Technology: Luleå.

16

Paper VI

The influence of organisational characteristics on the environmental benefits of environmental management systems

Zobel, T. (2005)

Submitted for publication

The Influence of Organisational Characteristics on the Environmental Benefits of Environmental Management Systems

Thomas ZobelDivision of Quality & Environmental ManagementLuleå University of Technology SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden Tel.: +46(0)920 492134; mob.: +46(0)70 3433590; fax: +46(0)920 492160 E-mail address: thomas.zobel@ltu.se

ABSTRACTMost of the previous studies on the effects of environmental management systems (EMS) treat all organisations as one homogenous group and do not examine the benefits of EMS implementation in relation to the differences in organisational characteristics. Since it isplausible that the benefits do indeed depend on different organisational characteristics, theaim of this study is to evaluate the influence of these characteristics on the environmentalbenefits of EMS. This study is based on secondary analysis of data and findings published in 46 other studies. The results of this study indicate that the benefits of EMS seem to be independent of the drivers for adoption. Not only large organisations but also smaller ones benefit from EMS. EMS implementation in smaller organisations is associated with significant barriers, but improvement occurs because these organisations often look at environmental issues for the first time when adopting an EMS. EMS appears to be afunctional tool not only in the industrial sector, but also in those parts of municipalities and government facilities that have the most complex environmental impact. No significant differences in benefits from EMS have been found in different cultural settings.

Keywords: Environmental management system, EMS, ISO 14001, corporate environmentalmanagement

Introduction

During the 1990s, the awareness and interest of both private companies and public administrations in environmental issues increased due to legislative pressures, green marketing opportunities, increased public knowledge and customer demands. Many of theseorganisations have therefore adopted environmental policies as a way of showing their commitment (Burström von Malmborg, 2002). To be able to implement the stated commitments in their policies, an increasing number of organisations have adopted environmental management systems (EMS). One of the first sectors to realise the need forsuch a system was the chemical industry, which developed the Responsible Care System as a direct response to the Bhopal industrial disaster in India in 1984. The United Kingdom has a tradition of being early in the development of standards and they published the EMS standard BS7750, which was founded on the corresponding standard for quality assurance, BS5750. Concurrently, the European Union published another version of an EMS, the Eco-

1

Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). These EMS standards were adopted mostly by industry in a relatively small scale but when the international standard ISO 14001 waspublished in September 1996, the implementation of EMSs became commonplace in industry.In recent years, the interest in EMS in the service sector and the public sector has also increased (Norén & von Malmborg, 2004; Honkasalo, 1999).

Advocates of EMS argue that the system can provide a structured and systematic way to deal with environmental issues in an organisation. Organisations with poor environmentalperformance can use it as a valuable management tool and it can also provide more ambitiousorganisations with a benchmark, as regards environmental issues, which can be used to identify weaknesses in the existing management system (Sunderland, 1998). It is widely claimed in the literature that the EMS standards have highlighted the fact that improvement of environmental performance is a business issue, and that effective environmental managementcan both reduce environmental impact and generate cost savings and business opportunities. Itis often assumed that good environmental performance can attract new customers, increase competitiveness and generate good financial returns.

There are also critics of EMS who question the claimed benefits of the systems. Two of the most commonly cited critics are Gleckman & Krut (1998), who are particularly critical of ISO 14001 as a tool for corporate environmental impact improvement. They see an ISO 14001-based system as an inadequate tool since it requires certified organisations neither to measureenvironmental performance nor to disclose results. They argue that there is no way of externally verifying that improvements in environmental performance actually occur. Boiral& Sala (1998) found in a study of industrial plants specialised in aluminium production that few managers mentioned environmental improvements due to the EMS implementation. They concluded that unlike investments in technology, investments in EMS implementation do not guarantee any improvements in environmental performance. Ammenberg & Hjelm (2002)draw similar conclusions in a study of 26 small- and medium-sized companies in Sweden. He claims that the standard enables such companies to interpret and apply the standard’sspecification in a way that allows them to obtain a certificate without achieving any real improvements.

Ever since EMSs started to be common after the publication of the international standard ISO 14001 in 1996, there has been a need to investigate how organisations have interpreted and used the standard and what the actual benefits of EMS implementation are. Some researchersclaim that very little research has been performed on the subject of the efficiency of EMS (Annandale et al., 2004; Babakri et al., 2003; Florida & Davison, 2001; Melnyk et al., 2003; Poksinska et al., 2002). However, during the last few years, the benefits and possibledrawbacks have been extensively evaluated by researchers all over the world. In this paper, 46 studies dealing with different benefits of EMS are identified. These studies, published between 1996 and 2004, show a wide range of results from implementation of EMS. Almostall of them tend to treat organisations as one homogenous group and do not examine thebenefits of EMS implementation in relation to the differences between organisations and their business context. However, it does not seem likely that EMS or any other management toolsuits all types of organisations. The benefits or drawbacks resulting from EMS are probably influenced by certain organisational characteristics (Chan & Li, 2001; Freimann & Walther, 2001).

2

Aim of the study

The aim of this paper is to evaluate if organisational characteristics have any effect on theenvironmental benefits of EMS implementation.

This paper focuses on concrete environmental improvements and organisational benefits, which are connected to environmental improvement such as, for example, improved relationship with authorities, more effective environmental organisation, higher employeeawareness regarding environmental issues and reduced risk of accidents leading toenvironmental impact.

The EMS evaluation studies cover different types of EMSs. A majority of the studies have studied ISO 14001-certified systems, a few concentrate on EMAS-registered companies and some focus on organisation-specific systems that are not third-party registered or certified. No distinction has been made between the different types of EMSs during the analysis in this study.

Methodology

This study is based on qualitative and quantitative data and findings already published in other studies on the benefits of EMS. Analysing secondary data can be seen as a re-analysis of data for the purpose of answering the original research questions, or answering new questions with old data. It can also be used to identify additional trends and patterns (Glass et al., 1981). This study is an attempt to identify patterns and relations not sought by the original authors.

The findings presented in a total of 46 evaluation studies covering a total of 33 countries worldwide have been re-analysed. The research methodologies in these studies include case studies, multiple case studies, interview-based surveys, questionnaire-based surveys,statistical analysis of database material and meta-studies. The major characteristics of these studies are summarised in Appendix 1. The actual number of reviewed publications is greater than 46, but some of them cover the same data sample. In this paper, the publications covering the same data are treated as one study. Three publications cover more than one study. In these cases, each study is re-analysed individually. The reviewed publications are mostly scientific journal articles, but a few are research reports. To identify relevant journal articles, an exhaustive search was made in the Wiley, Kluwer, Science direct, Ebsco Business Source Elite, Ebsco Academic Search Elite and Ebsco Econ Lit databases. These databases haveproven to be a good point a departure when identifying studied on EMS (Schylander & Zobel, 2003). Typical keywords were environmental management system, EMS, ISO 14001, EMASand corporate environmental management. Once a relevant article was found and reviewed, the reference list was studied to identify other relevant articles or reports. These publications and their reference lists were in turn also reviewed and so on until no more relevantpublications could be found. Some of the reports were, however, not possible to access.

A review like the one performed in this paper has limitations regarding theoreticalgeneralisation because the selection of the studies reviewed is beyond the control of the researcher (Yin, 1994). In addition, the researcher cannot influence the reliability and validity of the studies he or she is reviewing, unless, of course, the review is expanded beyond the material reproduced in the publications. In this study, only data presented in the publications has been reviewed and re-analysed.

3

The environmental manager1 is, with a few exceptions, the source of data regardless of the type of the study. The environmental manager is the one answering questionnaires, the interview respondent and the contact person in case studies. He or she is probably also the person behind much of the collected data in databases. The problem with the statements thesemanagers give is that they must be seen as subjective perceptions from the viewpoint of environmental managers (Freimann & Walther, 2001). The findings might be different ifmore objective evidence were collected or if more people with different responsibilities inside their companies were used as respondents (Hamschmidt & Dyllick, 2001). Another disturbing factor is that the environmental managers are professionals in corporate public relations, used to painting a positive picture of what they are asked about by external parties such asjournalists, researchers or students. Additionally, they have to communicate their own social role within the company as a positive one, and hence will not give any information that couldharm the company or themselves as environmental experts. This might lead to biases that cannot be eliminated (Freimann & Walther, 2001).

Despite the possible problems outlined above, none of the studies identified and listed inAppendix 1 have been excluded in this study due to low reliability or validity. Most of thestudies have been published after a peer review process and this is judged sufficient forinclusion in this study. However, a few studies have been excluded for other reasons. The study published in Berkhout et al. (2001) and Tyteca et al. (2002) compares the environmentalperformance in companies that have adopted an EMS with the performance in companies with no EMS, but since the levels of environmental performance before EMS adoption areunknown, the results cannot be used in the analysis in this study. The studies published by Biondi et al. (2000), Hillary et al. (1998), Hillary (1999), Hillary (2004), Steger (2000) andSummers Raines (2002) are excluded because it is not possible to re-analyse the data and results with respect to the organisational characteristics covered in this paper.

Organisational characteristics

In contrast to most of the previous studies on benefits of EMS, the research presented in thispaper is not focused on making general conclusions about the benefits of EMS. Instead, thispaper concentrates on the influence different organisational characteristics have on the effectsof EMS. During a review of EMS evaluation studies and other relevant literature, four characteristics have been identified that can be assumed to affect the outcome of EMS implementation; drivers for EMS adoption, organisation size, business sector and cultural setting. The motivation for choosing these four is outlined below. In addition to these organisational characteristics, other attributes most probably also affect the results of EMS adoption. Other relevant characteristics that are identified are time after EMS adoption, third-party certification, level of environmental activities before EMS adoption, level of regulatory control and experience in quality management systems before EMS adoption. An analysis with regard to these characteristics has not been possible in this study mainly since information about these is scarce in the reviewed publications.

Drivers for EMS adoption

The first of the identified characteristics that might be suspected to influence the achievedbenefits of EMS are the drivers for EMS adoption. Such a connection has been found in

1 In some organisations the person responsible for environmental issues might have the title environmentalcoordinator, environmental engineer or other similar titles.

4

studies on motives behind ISO 9000 certification and their effects on the overall certification benefits. Gotzamani & Tsiotras (2002) found in their study of ISO 9000 certified Greek companies that the benefits were greater for companies that implemented the standardfocusing mainly on real quality improvements in their internal operations and their end products or services. The results from the Greek study confirm the findings in previous studies performed by Douglas et al. (1999) and Withers & Ebrahimpour (2000). Douglas et al. (1999) showed, through a case study, that benefits from ISO 9000 implementation could only be achieved if the motives for certification were internal and if it was part of an overall qualitystrategy. Additional support was found by Withers & Ebrahimpour (2000), who showed that ISO 9000 implementation had positive effect on the quality performance as reflected by eight different dimensions2, but the degree to which it improved was influenced by the reasons for implementation. Since an ISO 9000-based system is similar in its structure to an ISO 14001-based system, organisations that implement an EMS might do so because they have a strong desire to achieve real environmental improvements instead of short-term image advantagesand will hence also experience greater environmental benefits. Such a connection is suggestedby Wallace-Jones (1998), who states that becoming ISO 14001-certified solely for the sake of certification may erode the value of EMS as a tool for better environmental management.Ilomäki & Melanen (2001) argue that an EMS should be implemented mainly for environmental reasons rather than reasons that are more business-related. They state that if theEMSs and the environmental activities are based on business-as-usual thinking and only aim to satisfy stakeholder demands, the achieved benefits will soon be lost.

Organisation size

Another organisational characteristic that might influence the usefulness of EMS is the size of the organisation. EMSs are widely presented as a suitable, and sometimes necessary, tool for larger companies (Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996; Wells & Galbraith, 1999). It has also been shown that EMS has predominantly been adopted by large companies (Merritt, 1998; Gribble & Dingle, 1996). The suitability of EMS for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been debated since ISO 14001 was published in 1996 (Gerstenfeld & Roberts, 2000; Hutchinson & Hutchinson, 1995; Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996). Gleckman & Krut (1997) suggest that the viewpoints and attitudes of SMEs have not at all been taken into account when creating the standard and it is therefore not suitable for these companies. Unfortunately,strategies and tools primarily designed for large organisations are often uncritically transferred to smaller organisations (Holt et al., 2000; Dandridge, 1979; Welsh & White,1981) and EMS is no exception (Gleckman & Krut, 1997; Palmer & van der Vorst, 1996). Many SMEs complain about the complexity of the ISO 14001-standard and the high costs for system implementation and third-party certification (Williams et al., 2000). The experiencedcomplexity of the standard and the lack of human and financial resources have in several studies proven to be major barriers for EMS implementation in SMEs (Hillary, 2004;Pimenova & van der Vorst, 2004). These barriers, together with the proposed inappropriateness of the EMS tool for smaller organisations might suggest that larger organisations will gain more from EMS implementation than smaller ones.

Business sector

A third factor that most probably impacts the benefits of an EMS in an organisation is the complexity of the organisation’s environmental impact. This complexity in not always easy to

2 Performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality.

5

assess for an organisation, but in this paper it is assumed that different business sectors are associated with different levels of environmental impact complexity. EMS is a tool to makethe environmental activities within an organisation more structured and the environmentalimprovements more systematic. Theoretically, an organisation with a large number ofenvironmental aspects impacting on the natural environment in many different ways (greatcomplexity) will therefore achieve more benefits from EMS adoption than an organisation with less complex environmental impact. Indeed, EMS was originally developed primarily by for-profit businesses, such as publicly traded corporations and privately owned firms that areusually associated with great environmental impact (Andrews et al., 2003). However, even if EMS was originally designed mainly for industry and has commonly been adopted by private industrial companies, many service organisations, such as local authorities and governmentfacilities, have also adopted the system (Riglar, 1997; Honkasalo, 1999; Emilsson & Hjelm,2002).

Cultural setting

The last organisational characteristic that is studied in this paper is the cultural setting in which the organisation operates. It is common that management tools are assumed to be universal solutions for organisations all over the world. However, ever since the 1980s, this assumption has been challenged by researchers in the management field. One of these, Geert Hofstede, claims that creators of different management tools are strongly influenced by the constraints of the environment in which they grow up and work (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, a tool is probably most effective in the culture setting where it was created. In contrast to many other management tools, EMS in accordance with ISO 14001 has been developedthrough international consensus (Cascio, 1996), but it is probably fair to make the assumptionthat some countries have had more influence than others.

To capture the dimension of national attitudes and behaviour and their influence on benefits of EMS, Hofstede’s concept of the ‘four cultural dimensions’ is chosen. The four dimensionsare (Hofstede, 1997):

i. Power distance. Do employees approach their boss directly without fear (low power distance)? Or do they prefer a paternalistic supervisor (large power distance)?

ii. Individualism. Are people expected to look after themselves (individualism)? Or arethey lifelong members of a close-knit community (collectivism)?

iii. Masculinity. Are men supposed to be tough and women to be modest (masculinity)?Or are men and women both supposed to be modest (femininity)?

iv. Uncertainty avoidance. Are people worried about uncertainty in the future (high uncertainty avoidance)? Or does uncertainty in the future not affect them (lowuncertainty avoidance)?

These dimensions are used in this paper to cluster different countries into larger groups according to scores set by Hofstede for the dimensions in the different countries. Each country’s score in the dimensions is also used when evaluating the impact of cultural setting on the success of EMS. It is quite possible that other concepts such as, for example, Michael Porter’s ‘national diamond’ (Porter, 2001), are also well suited to be used in an analysis of the influence of cultural setting on the success of EMS. However, Hofstede’s concept has themajor advantage that the nationalities of the organisations in each study are known in mostcases.

6

Results

Influence of drivers for EMS adoption on benefits of EMS

According to Gotzamani & Tsiotras (2002), pressures, competitors’ certification andadvertising needs are the dominating reasons behind ISO 9000 certifications. Such a dominance of external business reasons is not apparent in the case of EMS and ISO 14001. About half of the reviewed studies have identified reasons for the adoption of EMS. These reasons differ widely between organisations and most studies suggest that an EMS isimplemented for a variety of reasons, including both business- and environment-relatedreasons. Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) state that the large number of different reasons forEMS implementation suggests that EMSs are not perceived as instruments serving only a specific, narrowly defined purpose. Instead, EMSs are seen as broad, general instrumentsserving a wide array of purposes. This is confirmed by Chan & Li (2001), who found that most of the certified companies in Hong Kong considered an ISO 14001-based EMS to be an environmental protection and pollution prevention measure as well as a commercial tool. Thefindings of Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) and Chan & Li (2001) are strengthened by the fact that many studies on the drivers and benefits of EMS report a mixture of motivations for EMS implementation.

Benefits in organisations where environmental drivers dominate

None of the reviewed studies present examples of organisations that implement and certifytheir EMS solely for the purpose of improving their environmental performance However, a few examples have been identified where environmental reasons dominate, but other motives,such as improving regulatory compliance, improving existing environmental activities and risk minimisation, are usually added to the desire to reduce environmental impact.

In two of the four studies in which environmental drivers for EMS adoption dominate, the EMSs had been in place for a short period of time and it was therefore not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the systems’ impact on environmental performance (Andrews et al., 2003; Freimann & Walther, 2001). The other two studies, found various concrete environmental benefits such as lower emissions, less waste, improved recycling of waste, reduction of dust and noise and less environmental risks (Thedéen, 1996; Florida & Davison, 2001). It seems as if improved knowledge of the organisations’ internal processes and increased awareness among employees are common to a majority of the studies. These organisations also seem to benefit from the fact that the EMSs contribute formality and a systematic approach to environmental management.

Benefits in organisations where business drivers dominate

As stated above, most studies suggest that EMS is implemented for a variety of reasons, both business- and environmental-related. In some studies, however, drivers such as improving the organisation’s image, customer pressure or requirements, gaining a larger market share,overcoming export barriers, new market opportunities and cost savings tend to dominate. As presented above, researchers have suggested that organisations that adopt EMS for these reasons will not experience the same degree of benefits of EMS as in organisations where environmental drivers dominate (Wallace-Jones, 1998; Ilomäki & Melanen, 2001). This hypothesis is strengthened by research findings showing that benefits of quality managementsystems are greater for companies that implement the standard focusing mainly on real quality

7

improvements rather than on image improvements (Gotzamani & Tsiotras, 2002; Douglas et al., 1999; Withers & Ebrahimpour, 2000). Indeed, some evidence exists indicating that business reasons have a negative impact on the environmental benefits of EMS.

The studies performed by Chan & Li (2001) and Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2000) are two examples, where business-related drivers dominate. Chan & Li (2001) report that the mostimportant motivating factors for ISO 14001 certification among companies in Hong Kong were to gain a larger market share, to show goodwill, to act as a promotional tool and to reduce costs. Company representatives report that 57 % of the companies experienced no environmental impact reduction and 64 % experienced no impact on the environmentalawareness of their employees. About four fifths of the company representatives did not apportion any impact of EMS to their degree of compliance with environmental legislation. Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) found that public image and achievement of ISO 14001 certification were at the top of the list of expectations when Swiss companies adopted ISO14001-based EMSs. According to the researchers, modest improvements in eco-efficiency were experienced by the companies. Some 60 % of the companies experienced ‘somedecrease’ in their material and energy flows in relation to turnover. One tenth of thecompanies reported a strong decrease. In addition, a majority of companies (about 60 %) stipulated that EMS only had a supportive influence on their environmental performance.Some 15 % of the companies felt that EMS had a decisive influence. Looking at products, Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) conclude that EMSs play only a supporting role and lack real influence on product improvements. The respondents were somewhat more positive regarding organisational benefits, such as improvement in systematisation of existing environmentalactivities, legal compliance, risk reduction and employee motivation.

The companies in Hong Kong and Switzerland acknowledge limited impact of EMS. However, most of the other studies covering organisations whose drivers for EMS are morebusiness-related present a much more positive picture. One such study covering Swedishorganisations is presented by Zackrisson et al. (2000). They found that the three dominatingreasons for EMS adoption were competitive advantage, owner pressure and customerdemands (18 %). The results from a questionnaire showed that the greatest environmentalimprovements were better waste recovery, less waste, safer handling of chemicals, lower energy consumption and reduced emissions. Almost four out of five goals focused on reduction, indicating that the effect on environmental performance was positive. In another Swedish study, Poksinska et al. (2003) were surprised to find that environmentalimprovements were only the sixth most important motive for EMS implementation inSwedish companies. The data indicates that the most significant motive for implementation of an ISO 14001-based system is improvement of corporate image followed by marketingadvantage, consumer pressure, relations with the general public and with the authorities.Despite the dominance of business drivers, 72 % of the companies perceived substantial or very substantial benefits in environmental improvements. Significant benefits were achieved also in improvement of internal procedures and relations with authorities and the general public.

Summary of findings

No evidence has been found to suggest that the dominance of business drivers for EMS implementation has a negative influence on the benefits of EMS. Even if it is possible to findbusiness-driven organisations that experience only limited effects of EMS, most of these also

8

seem to improve their environmental performance to the same degree as more environment-driven organisations.

Influence of organisation size on the benefits of EMS

In most of the reviewed studies, it is not possible to study the effects of organisation size on environmental performance, since they do not classify the studied organisations into different size categories. Instead, they treat all organisations as one homogeneous group and try to draw general conclusions. In 14 studies it has been possible to identify the organisation sizes and to classify them into size categories. The European Union (EU) classification is used in this study to analyse whether the organisation size has any impact on the benefits of EMS. According to this classification, large organisations have more than 250 employees, medium-sized organisations between 50 and 249 employees, small organisations between 10 and 49 employees and micro-sized organisations less than 10 employees (CEC, 1996)3. Small and micro-sized organisations are in this study considered as one group.

Benefits in SMEs

As outlined in the introduction, EMS implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs), and especially small and micro-sized organisations, is associated with problems due to the complexity of the standard and the lack of human and financial resources. These barriers and the proposed inappropriateness of the EMS tool for smaller organisations mightindicate that such organisation experience less benefits from EMS adoption than their largercounterparts. However, this does not seem to be the case in the studies covering SMEs. On the contrary, many SMEs seem to experience a wide variety of environmental benefits.

One medium-sized company reporting several benefits is the British company Autosmart with 63 employees (Robinson & Clegg, 1998). Autosmart’s main manufacturing activities include mixing, blending and packaging products for cleaning vehicles. The EMS implementationprocess raised the employees’ awareness of the problem with spills from chemical storage and as a consequence spillage and effluent have been reduced. The EMS also helped in the reorganisation of processing activities and these changes have in turn led to a reduction in the quantity of effluent being produced and reduced health and safety risks. The reorganisation also had positive effect on the risk of accidents and energy consumption. Other concrete environmental improvements were the introduction of a recycling system for conventional waste, replacements of existing light-bulbs with low-energy units and the introduction of a monitoring system for water use. The company has also helped their customers to reducewaste and non-compliance events through external environmental audits focusing on effluent discharge.

EMS can be an effective tool in even smaller companies than the British example above. In a Swedish study of 26 mostly small and micro-sized companies, recycling of conventional and hazardous waste has improved (Ammenberg & Hjelm, 2003). More than half of the companies have replaced chemicals with more environmentally compatible products. Abouthalf of the companies have striven for a decrease in transportation. Some of them haveimproved the storage of chemicals and hazardous waste and thereby reduced the risk of

3 In addition to specifications regarding the number of employees in large, medium-sized, small and micro-sizedorganisations, the EU definition also include specifications regarding annual turnover and annual balance sheettotal. The organisation must also be an independent enterprise, i.e. 25% or more of the capital or voting rightscan not be owned by larger enterprises (CEC, 1996).

9

accidents. The companies have changed their heating systems and are now connected to a district heating networks. Lastly, some companies have taken measures to decrease theamount of electricity used.

The two examples presented above indicate that small and medium-sized organisations benefit from EMS adoption. It seems as if EMS generally leads to various benefits in organisations of all sizes. However, some differences have been identified between large,medium-sized and small organisations.

Comparison of benefits in large, medium-sized and small organisations

Most of the large companies experienced improvement in regulatory compliance or stated thatthe risk of non-compliance had been reduced as a result of EMS implementation. A positiveeffect on compliance is also identified in medium-sized companies but not to the same degreeas in larger enterprises. None of the studies on small companies mentions anything about improvements in compliance. Concrete improvements in environmental performance are found in all studies, regardless of the company size. Reduced amount of conventional and hazardous waste seem to be the most common environmental aspects in all size categories, but reduction of water consumption and of energy use are also fairly common in companies ofall sizes. None of the small or medium-sized companies reports any effect on emission to air, water and soil, whereas two of the large companies covered by case studies mention thepositive impact of EMS on emission levels. The effects of EMS on transport volumes and products are rarely reported in all size categories.

Other areas that seem to be independent of company size are the interest for environmentalissues and the awareness of the company’s environmental aspects and its impact. An increaseof the awareness of environmental issues is one of the most common areas of improvement.In a few cases, EMS has also led to a wider allocation of responsibility regarding environmental activities. This organisational development has occurred in both large and medium-sized organisations, but no report of this can be found in the studies on smallcompanies. Other commonly reported benefits in large companies are improvement in document control and record-keeping and systematisation of environmental activities.Benefits of this nature have only been found in one of the eight studies covering small and medium-sized companies.

Influence of business sector on benefits of EMS

In order to analyse differences in benefits from EMS in relation to business sector, the reviewed studies have been grouped in five different sectors: printing sector, energy production, manufacturing, primary resources and municipalities/government facilities. The studies are grouped this way because of the complexity of the environmental impact of theorganisations studied. Of the reviewed studies, 20 focus solely on organisations in one of the five sectors and are therefore used to analyse of the influence the line of business has on the benefits of EMS.

Comparison of benefits in different industrial sectors

It has not been possible to identify any major patterns in the existing evidence regardingdifferences in the benefits of EMS in the printing, energy production, manufacturing and primary resources sectors. A wide variety of environment-related benefits are experienced in

10

all these sectors. The only study that does not report any effect on environmental performanceis a study of five domestic energy and gas companies in Germany (Morrow & Rondinelli, 2002). None of these companies experienced improvements in environmental performanceresulting from EMS.

The small differences in benefits from EMS in the printing, energy production, manufacturingand primary resources sectors that do exist seem to be connected to the specific nature of each sector’s activities and environmental impact. One example is an ISO 14001-certified and EMAS-registered Austrian brewery (Fresner & Engelhardt, 2004). Due to the nature of the company’s operations, the environmental improvements are focused on fresh water consumption and the waste reduction. The EMS has lead to a considerable reduction in water consumption and the implementation of a large number of waste minimisation measures,resulting in a substantial decrease of the amount of industrial waste. Another example ispresented by Christensen & Dalby Rasmussen (1998) in their study of twelve Danish companies within the printing house industry. The most common concrete environmentalimprovement areas were reduction of paper waste, introduction of environmental friendly paper, VOC reduction, reduction of printing ink waste and reduction of energy use and wastewater production.

Comparison of benefits in industry and the public sector

In addition to an analysis of differences in benefits of EMS in the four industrial sectors, thebenefits in these sectors were compared to the corresponding benefits in municipalities and government facilities. Since EMS was originally developed primarily as a tool for industry, one might expect the benefits of EMS in municipalities and government facilities are to be more limited.

This expectation is, however, not confirmed in a study of 22 government facilities in the U.S. (Andrews et al., 2003). The 22 facilities represented a wide range of facility types, including universities, military bases, wastewater treatment and transit operations, public services suchas parks and lighting, and city and state governments. The varied benefits described by these government facilities can be summarised in six broad categories: increased management and employee efficiency, increased operational efficiency, improved community relations and improved customer/supplier relationships, reduced liability, regulatory benefits and improved environmental performance. One of the most fundamental benefits the facilities experiencedfrom EMS implementation was improved environmental awareness, involvement and competency throughout the facility. The recognition of simple internal housekeepingmeasures that have a positive effect on environmental performance, and the introduction ofadditional self-imposed requirements to help prevent pollution and reduce energy use, werealso frequently cited as environmental benefits. Other benefits reported included better knowledge of operational hotspots, increased investigation into the root causes of non-compliance, a sense of increased control over environmental issues, more consistent methodsof seeking to eliminate causes of violations and prevent future occurrences and the ability to carry out environmental protection in areas where regulatory programmes do not exist.

Additional evidence of the usefulness of EMS in municipalities was found by Norén & von Malmborg (2004) in their study of two municipalities in Sweden. According to representatives from the two municipalities, the general experience in both is that theenvironmental management functions better since the EMS has been implemented. The experienced advantages are a more distinct structure, better defined liability among officers,

11

clearer information, greater awareness of environmental issues, simpler communication and integration of environmental issues in planning and daily work. It appeared from interviews inthe study that the functionality of the EMS in local authorities depends on the type of the municipal administration. EMSs seem to function well in production and technical service administrations and in municipally owned companies, but they do not seem to function so well in care and social service administrations.

The benefits reported by Andrews et al. (2003) and Norén & von Malmborg (2004) indicatethat EMS can be a functional tool not only in industry but also in municipalities and government facilities. However, it seems as if most of the improvement in environmentalperformance is experienced in the parts of these organisations that are associated with directenvironmental impact such as, for example, municipally owned companies or wastewater treatment plants. Other, more organisationally oriented benefits are also found in these organisations as well as in organisations more focused on providing services.

Influence of cultural setting on benefits of EMS

To be able to cluster countries into larger groups and hence facilitate analysis of the culturaleffect on benefits of EMS, scores set by Geert Hofstede for his proposed ‘four cultural dimensions’ are used. Applying the scores to the 46 studies that were possible to use for thisanalysis resulted in five groups each exhibiting similar national cultures: Anglo-Saxon countries, German-speaking countries, Scandinavia, North-East Asia and Latin European countries (and Mexico).

A total of 21 studies cover benefits of EMS in Anglo-Saxon countries. Most of the evidence comes from the U.S. (10 studies) and the UK (8 studies), but also from studies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Almost all of these studies agree that EMS brings both concrete environmental improvements and other improvements of a more organisational nature to the organisations that adopt a system. Only two of the reviewed studies showed limited effects. Inone of these, a study of 131 Canadian companies, the authors report that the actual benefits gained from implementation and certification of an EMS appear somewhat less substantialthan one might expect (Berthelot et al. (2003). In the other study, a U.S. study covering 1,510 companies, EMS could not be said to have had a positive effect on two variables for measuring environmental performance (Melnyk et al., 2003). These two variables were ‘significantly reduced waste within production processes’ and ‘significantly reduced waste within equipment selection processes’.

Nine studies from the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) have been identified. Six of these are of Swedish origin. All Scandinavian studies have found somepositive effect of EMS, but two of them raise doubts regarding the benefits of the system.Bring Procopé & Axelsson (2003) found in a study of 31 ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered companies in various industrial sectors, that 58 % of the companies continuously improved their total environmental performance. About one third of these companies did notachieve improvements regarding their significant environmental aspects. However, they were able to improve some of their other aspects. In one tenth of the companies, no environmentalimprovements at all had been identified. In a study of 41 Finnish SMEs, the benefits reported were mainly connected to legal compliance (Ilomäki & Melanen, 2001). The researchers claimed that the companies studied had full awareness of the legal requirements associatedwith their operation and that they usually operated well within those requirements. These

12

enterprises were aware of their environmental impacts and these were well documented.However, the system improvements did not seem to have any effect on waste reduction.

The number of identified studies in German-speaking countries is relatively few, consideringthe great number of EMAS-registrations and ISO 14001-certifications in these countries. However, some of these studies are meta-studies covering other studies based on primary data from German companies. As with studies in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, a majority of the studies in the German-speaking part of the world suggest that EMS leads to improvement in environmental performance as well as in organisational improvements.However, three out of eight studies raise some doubts about the efficiency of EMS regarding concrete environmental performance. In an Austrian meta-study covering 13 original studies, no general conclusions could be drawn since the EMSs in some evaluations showed a good and strong effect and in others showed no effect (Pecher et al., 2002). Another Austrian study covering 43 ISO 14001-certified or EMAS-registered companies showed that the EMSs had positive effect on environmental performance parameters such as conventional waste,recycled paper, generation of wastewater, packaging material and water consumption(Wallner et al., 2000). The adoption of an EMS had no effect on consumption of electricity, fuel oil and gas. Moreover, generation of scrap metal, packaging waste and hazardous waste were not effected by EMS adoption. A German study of five energy and gas companies showed that none of these companies experienced significant environmental performanceimprovements from the EMS (Morrow & Rondinelli, 2002).

The same pattern as in the previous group is evident in Latin-European countries and Mexico. Three out of four studies show that EMSs lead to reduced environmental impact andorganisational improvements, but one study suggests limited effects of EMS. The results in a Spanish study performed by Leal et al. (2003) showed that 31 % of the companiesexperienced improved control and overall management of the company as the most decisiveEMS-related factor in increased competitiveness. Some 20 % of the respondents stated that the EMS had led to assurance of legal compliance and less than 15 % of the companiesbelieved that the EMS helped them with resource optimisation.

The last group, North-East Asia, includes the countries Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan. The scores these countries have been given for the cultural dimensions indicate that the national cultures in these countries differ more than in the other groups, but for the sake of simplicity these three countries have been grouped together. Also here, the pattern regarding benefits of EMS is the same. Four out of five studies presents a variety of benefits from EMS adoption, but one study shows a more doubtful picture. A study of Hong Kong-based companies reports that 57 % experienced no environmental impact reduction and 64 % experienced no effect on employees’ environmental awareness (Chan & Li, 2001). A majorityof the company representatives did not see any impact from EMS on their degree ofregulatory compliance.

As the results in each cultural group indicate, there is no clear difference regarding benefits of EMS in any of the cultural settings included in the analysis. The pattern is the same in all settings; a clear majority of the studies shows positive effect of EMS adoption and one or afew studies reports only limited benefits. The only group where this pattern might bequestioned is German-speaking countries, in which the reports of limited benefits weresomewhat more common than in the other groups.

13

Discussion and conclusions

Drivers for EMS adoption and benefits of EMS

Considering the previous findings about the drivers for implementation of ISO 9000-based quality systems, it would be expected that the real reasons for EMS implementation and ISO14001- certification are business-related drivers such as enhancing image and customerpressure. This assumption seems to be partly true. The external business drivers dominatetogether with the desire to increase the degree of regulatory compliance as motivations for EMS implementation, but most studies also show that environmental considerations often contribute to the decision to adopt an EMS. The results of this study support the findings by Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) that EMSs are implemented for a variety of reasons and are therefore seen as a general tool serving a wide array of purposes. However, this study has identified a number of studies in which internal environmental drivers dominate as well asstudies where external business drivers are claimed to be more important. In those cases where internal environmental drivers dominate, the most common benefits cited areorganisational benefits such as improvement of employees’ awareness and understanding of the organisations’ environmental impact, assurance of compliance with all relevantrequirements in regulations and improvement in the systematisation and documentation of processes of operative environmental care. Some direct environmental improvements are reported, such as lower emissions, less waste and more recycling and fewer complaints about dust and noise. In cases where external business drivers dominate, improvements in regulatory compliance, systematisation and employees’ awareness were also found. In addition, direct environmental improvements are as common as they are in cases whereenvironmental drivers dominate.

These finding are in contrast to the findings of a recent Swedish study (Bring Procopé & Axelsson, 2003). Here, the researchers found that organisations driven by internal environmental ambitions also achieved a higher rate of continual improvement than those who were motivated by customer pressure or owner requirements. However, the results in thispaper seem to confirm the findings by Fryxell & Szeto (2002). In their study of ISO 14001-certified facilities, they were surprised to find that the motivation to improve environmentalperformance seemed to have little effect on the effectiveness of the EMS components and thereby the environmental performance of these facilities. They were encouraged by the fact that firms seeking to enhance their reputation and reduce costs through ISO 14001-certification seemed to be more ambitious in their EMS implementation. In the light of their findings, they suggest that it is the rigour of the marketplace and competition that leads tosomewhat more effective EMSs than altruism or ideals. One possible explanation is that theactual EMS implementation process leads to an increase in awareness of environmental issuesamong both employees and managers regardless of the motivations for implementation. This improvement in awareness in turn leads to other improvements. Evidence for this was found by Andrews et al. (2003) in a case study where the mid-level managers’ scepticism remaineduntil the facility began its EMS implementation. Managers who were otherwise critical became supportive when they were involved in identifying environmental aspects and impacts, determining their significance and setting goals.

Organisation size and benefits of EMS

No major differences in benefits in small, medium and large organisations have been identified in this study. Concrete improvements in environmental performance are found in

14

organisations of all sizes except regarding transports and products where improvements are rare in all size categories. Improvements in regulatory compliance are more common in large companies than in medium-sized, whereas small companies do not report any impact on compliance. Another benefit which is common in organisations of all sizes in a growing interest for environmental issues and an increase in awareness of the company’senvironmental aspects and their impact. Larger organisations commonly report improvementin document control and record-keeping and systematisation of environmental activities, but these improvements are rare in small and medium-sized companies.

The evidence that improvement in environmental performance seems to be independent of organisation size is not supported by Bring Procopé & Axelsson (2003), who found thatcompanies with more than 100 employees showed a somewhat higher rate of continual improvement in total environmental performance than companies with less than 60employees. Similar findings were made by Fryxell & Szeto (2002), who report larger facilitieshaving somewhat more effective EMSs with regard to environmental improvements. In contrast to these findings, a U.S. study revealed that the improvements in recycling performance due to ISO 14001 were significantly lower for larger companies than for smallerones (Babakri et al. 2004). The conclusion was based on the fact that larger companies usually have greater resources and expertise compared to smaller enterprises, and thus are more likelyto have had better recycling performance prior to certification.

The fact that larger organisations experience benefits from EMS might be expected, since EMS was originally designed to suit large organisations. But the suitability for SMEs has often been questioned and it might therefore be somewhat surprising that also medium-sizedand even small and micro-sized organisations seem to benefit quite well from EMS adoption. A probable explanation can be found in some of the reviewed studies. According to Berkhoutet al. (2001), large companies are generally held to be under more sustained regulatory pressure than smaller ones. Large companies have, therefore, generally good control over environmental legislation and what they have to do to be in compliance. In addition, they usually also run their operations within the limits of a permit. This forces them to implementprocedures to monitor and measure the environmental aspects that can have significantenvironmental impact. These procedures together form a basic EMS and these companiestherefore have less to gain from adopting an ISO 14001-based EMS than companies without a permit. This is supported by Andrews et al. (2003), who claim that small manufacturingcompanies without a permit often look at environmental issues for the first time when they implement an EMS. Therefore, they find many areas to improve. A statement from a smallGerman energy company also supports this (Morrow & Rondinelli, 2000). One of the managers in this company stated that prior to EMS implementation, they did not know if the firm was violating laws or regulations because they had never taken the time to check.

A positive outcome of management system implementation in SMEs has also been found in studies on ISO 9000. Gotzamani & Tsiotras (2002) claim that the contribution of ISO 9000 is actually greater for small and medium-sized companies than for larger. Their results are inaccordance with the results in some previous studies (Fenghueih, 1998: McAdam & McKeown, 1999). The importance of the size factor for the benefits of ISO 9000 adoption is further enhanced by findings showing that certification motives of smaller companies tend to be more external and passive than those of larger ones (Lee & Palmer, 1999; Nwankwo, 2000).

15

Business sector and benefits of EMS

No major differences in the degree of benefits from EMS have been identified in differentindustrial sectors in this study. However, differences in the type of benefits do exist. These differences seem to be connected to the specific nature of each sector’s activities and environmental impact. This development is no surprise since an EMS is based on theenvironmental aspects which have the most environmental impact. The improvements willtherefore most likely appear in those areas where each organisation’s impact is the greatest.

It is clear that EMS also leads to improvements in municipalities and government facilities,even if concrete environmental improvements do not seem to be as common in these organisations as they are in privately owned companies in the industrial sector. However, improvements of organisational type are just as frequently reported in studies of municipalities and government facilities as in those which study benefits in the industrial sector. Hence, the type of ownership does not appear to have any effect on the usefulness of EMS.

Another finding from the analysis of benefits of EMS in municipalities and governmentfacilities is that EMSs seem to be functioning well in those parts of these organisations that have the greatest and most complex environmental impact such as technical serviceadministrations and municipally owned companies. The systems do not seem to function so well in those parts providing services. Perhaps this is expected since EMS was created to meetthe needs of the industrial sector. These findings are supported by Anton et al. (2004), who claim that EMS is particularly successful in companies with large toxic release intensity.Further support is found in many of the reviewed studies in this paper suggesting that mostimprovements in environmental performance are experienced in areas that can be managedwithin the gates of a facility such as waste, emissions and resource use. Reports of positiveeffects regarding indirect environmental aspects such as reduction of transport emissions and environmental impact connected to products or services are rare. These aspects are just theaspects that are most important for service-providing organisations, but if the industrial sector fails to deal with these aspects, it does not seem likely that service-providing organisations will succeed.

Cultural setting and benefits of EMS

The environmental policy implementation within an EMS where the policy is broken down into objectives and targets throughout the whole organisation can be seen as management by objectives (MBO) with an environmental focus. MBO was first introduced in the U.S. in the 1950s by Peter Drucker (Drucker, 1954). According to Hofstede (2001), this managementtechnique reflects the value position in the U.S. in that it presupposes the following:

The subordinate is sufficiently independent to have a meaningful dialogue with the superior (not to high scores for the cultural dimension power distance) Both superior and subordinate are prepared to accept some ambiguity (low scores for thecultural dimension uncertainty avoidance) Both superior and subordinate see performance as an important criterion (high scores for the cultural dimension masculinity)

In other words, according to Hofstede, MBO, and thus also EMS, functions best in a national culture such as in the U.S. and in those cultures that score fairly low on power distance, low

16

on uncertainty avoidance and high on masculinity. The analysis of benefits of EMS in U.S. organisations shows that EMS functions well and contributes environmental improvements in these organisations. The same is true in other Anglo-Saxon countries as well.

German-speaking countries score low on power distance and high on masculinity which should be beneficial for EMS in these countries. However, these countries score high on uncertainty avoidance, which might be a disadvantage. These scores might explain why fewof the studies in German-speaking countries report limited benefits from EMS. Few of theScandinavian studies claimed limited effects of EMS, which might also be explained by the scores; low on power distance, low on uncertainty avoidance and low on masculinity. Thefirst two are good conditions but the low score on masculinity might be a disadvantage.

So far, Hofstede’s framework has explained the degree of benefits from EMS fairly well. However, it is not so successful when explaining the relatively extensive benefits of EMS found in Latin-European countries, Mexico and North-East Asian countries. Most of thesecountries have unfavourable scores in two cultural dimensions or in some cases all three. South Korea, Italy and Spain have unfavourable scores in all three dimensions, but moststudies in these countries claims many benefits from EMS adoption.

Overall it seems that using Hofstede’s framework to evaluate the influence of cultural settingon benefits of EMS is associated with some problems. One source of error might be thetransference of Hofstede’s reasoning regarding good conditions for MBO to favourablecultural settings for EMS. Environmental issues must perhaps be treated differently to other business issues. A high score on masculinity might be good for management tools whichinclude MBO, but in countries with low masculinity score, for example the Scandinavian countries, conservation of the environment is seen as an important problem. Another source of error is the extrapolation from national culture to organisational culture. People working in an organisation are not only influenced by values they acquire from growing up in a specific country. They are also influenced by organisation-specific values.

Concluding remarks

The research presented in this paper is one of the first steps taken to evaluate the usefulness of EMS considering the fact that different organisations are associated with organisation-specificcharacteristics. The number of studies on benefits of EMS, which treat all organisations as one homogeneous group, is great and additional studies with this focus are probably notneeded. Instead, scholars in this field of research should focus their efforts on identifying in which organisations EMS leads to improvements and in which organisations it does not. When this is known, research can be directed towards improving the systems in those organisations in which EMS fails or these organisations can simply be advised to use other tools for improving their environmental performance.

References

Ammenberg J, Hjelm O. Tracing business and environmental effects of environmental management systems - a study of networking small and medium-sized enterprises using a joint environmental management system.Business Strategy and the Environment 2003;12(3): 163-174.

Ammenberg J, Hjelm O. The connection between environmental management systems and continualenvironmental performance improvements. Corporate Environmental Strategy 2002;9(2):183-192.

17

Andrews R, Amaral D, Darnall N, Rigling Gallagher D, Edwards D, Hutson A, D’Amore C, Sun L, Zhang Y,Keiner S, Feldman E, Fried D, Jacoby J, Mitchell M, Pflum K. Environmental Management Systems: Do TheyImprove Performance? National Database on Environmental Management Systems. Chapal Hill, NC: Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003.

Annandale D, Morrison-Suders A, Bouma G. The Impact of voluntary environmental protection instruments oncompany environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 2004;13(1):1-12.

Anton WRQ, Deltas G, Khanna M. Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications forenvironmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004;48(1):632-654.

Babakri KA, Bennett RA, Rao S, Franchetti M. Recycling performance of firms before and after adoption of theISO 14001 standard. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(6):633-637.

Berkhout F, Hertin J, Azzone G, Carlens J, Drunen M, Jasch C, Noci G, Olsthoorn X, Tyteca D, Van Der Woerd F, Wagner M, Wehrmeyer W, Wolf O. (2001). Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry (MEPI).SPRU – University of Sussex.

Berthelot S, McGraw E, Coulmont M, Morrill J. ISO 14000: Added value for Canadian business? EnvironmentalQuality Management 2003;13(2):47-57.

Biondi V, Frey M, Iraldo F. Environmental management systems and SMEs: motivations, opportunities andbarriers related to EMAS and ISO 14001 implementation. Greener Management International 2000;29(Spring2000):55-70.

Boiral O, Sala J-M. Environmental management: should industry adopt ISO 14001? Business Horizon1998;41(1):57-64.

Bring Procopé C, Axelsson U. Förbättras Miljöprestandan genom Miljöledningssystem? IVL Report B1529.Stockholm: IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet AB, 2003. (In Swedish)

Burström von Malmborg F. Environmental management systems, communicative action and organizationallearning. Business Strategy and the Environment 2002;11(5):312-323.

Cascio J, editor. The ISO 14000 Handbook. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press, 1996.

CEC. Council Recommendation of 3 April 1996 Concerning the Definition of Small and Medium-sizedEnterprises, OJ, L107, vol. 39, 30 May 1996; Brussels, 1996.

Chan K-Y, Li X-D. A Study of the implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in HongKong. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2001;44(5):589-601.

Christensen P, Dalby Rasmussen B. Implementation of environmental management in the Danish printing houseindustry. Eco-Management and Auditing 1998;5(2):88-94.

Dandridge TC (1979) Children are not ‘little grown ups’: Small business needs its own organizational theory.Journal of Small Business Management 1979;April 17(2):53-57.

Douglas A, Kirk D, Brennan C, Ingram A. Maximizing the benefits of ISO 9000 implementation. Total QualityManagement 1999;10(4, 5):507-513.

Drucker P. The Practice of Management. New ed. Oxord: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.

Emilsson S, Hjelm O. Mapping environmental management system initiatives in Swedish local authorities – a national survey. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2002;9(2):107-115.

Fenghueih H. Integrating ISO 9000 with TQM spirits: a survey. Industrial Management and Data System1998;98(7-8):373-379.

18

Florida R, Davison D. Gaining from green management: environmental management systems inside and outsidethe factory. California Management Review 2001;43(3):64-84.

Freimann J, Walther M. The Impacts of corporate environmental management systems: a comparison of EMASand ISO 14001. Greener Management International 2001;36(Winter 2001):91-103.

Fresner J, Engelhardt G. Experiences with integrated management systems for two small companies in Austria.Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12:623-631.

Fryxell GE, Szeto A. The Influence of motivations for seeking ISO 14001 certification: an empirical study ofISO 14001 certified facilities in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management 2002;65 (3):223-238.

Gerstenfeld A, Robert H. Size matters: barriers and prospects for environmental management in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Hillary R, editor. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment.Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, 2000.

Gleckman H, Krut R. Neither international nor standard: The limits of ISO 14001 as an instrument of globalenvironmental management. In Sheldon C, editor. ISO 14001 and Beyond: Environmental Management Systemsin the Real World. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, 1997.

Glass G, McGaw B, Smith M. Meta-analysis in Social Research. London: Sage Publications Inc, 1991.

Gotzamani KD, Tsiotras GD. The true motives behind ISO 9000 certification benefits and long term contributiontowards TQM. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2002;19(2):151-169.

Gribble N, Dingle P. Environmental Management Systems: A Western Australian Perspective. Perth, WA:Murdoch University School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, 1996.

Hamschmidt J, Dyllick T. ISO 14001 – Profitable? Yes! But is it eco-effective? Greener ManagementInternational 2001;34(Summer 2001):43-53.

Hillary R. An Assessment of the Implementation Status of Council Regulation (No 1836/93) Eco-Managementand Audit Scheme (EMAS) in the European Union Member States (AIM-EMAS). London: Imperial College,1998.

Hillary R. Evaluation of Study Reports on the Barriers, Opportunities and Drivers for Small and Medium-SizedEnterprises in the Adoption of Environmental Management Systems. London: Department of Trade andIndustry, 1999.

Hillary R. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production2004;12(6):561-569.

Hofstede G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. Revised edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations AcrossNations. Second edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc, 2001.

Holt D, Anthony S, Viney H. Supporting environmental improvements in small and medium-sized enterprises inthe UK. Greener Management International 2000;30(Summer 2000):29-49.

Honkasalo A. Environmental management systems at the national level. Eco-Management and Auditing1999;6(4):170-173.

Hutchinson A. Hutchinson C. Sustainable regeneration of the UK’s small and medium-scale enterprise sector:some implications of SME response to BS7750. Greener Management International 1995;9(January 1995):74-84.

Ilomäki M, Melanen M. Waste minimisation in small and medium-sized enterprises – do environmentalmanagement systems help? Journal of Cleaner Production 2001;9:209-217.

19

Leal GG, Fa MC, Psaola JV. Using environmental management systems to increase firms’ competitiveness.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2003;10(2):101-110.

Lee KS, Palmer, E. An empirical examination of ISO 9000-registrered companies in New Zealand. Total QualityManagement 1999;10(6):887-899.

McAdam R, McKeown M. Life after ISO 9000: an analysis of the impact of ISO 9000 and total qualitymanagement on small businesses in Northern Ireland. Total Quality Management 1999;10(2):229-241.

Melnyk SA, Sroufe RP, Calantone R. Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporateand environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management 2003;21(3):329-351.

Merritt QJ. EM into SME won´t go? Attitudes, awareness and practices in the London Borough of Croydon.Business Strategy and the Environment 1998;7(2):90-100.

Morrow D, Rondinelli D. Adopting corporate environmental management systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. European Management Journal 2002:20(2):159-171.

Norén H, von Malmborg F. Are standardized EMSs useful in local authorities? A study of how a tool from theprivate sector is used in the public sector. Business Strategy and the Environment 2004;13(3):187-197.

Nwankwo S. Quality assurance in small business organisations: myths and realities. International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management 2000;17(1):82-99.

Palmer J, van der Vorst R. Are ‘Standards’ Right for SMEs?, Eco-Management and Auditing 1996;(3):91-96.

Pecher A, Tschulik A, Martinuzzi, A. EMAS – an instrument for environmental communication (examiningEMS-evaluation studies). 2002.

Pimenova P, van der Vorst R. The role of support programmes and policies in improving SMEs environmentalperformance in developed and transition economies. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(6):549-559.

Poksinska B, Dahlgaard JJ, Eklund J. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisonswith ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 2003;20(5):585-606.

Porter ME. The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review 1990;68(2):73-93.

Riglar N. Eco-Management and audit scheme for UK local authorities. In: Sheldon C, editor. ISO 14001 andBeyond: Environmental Management Systems in the Real World. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 1997

Robinson D, Clegg A. Environmental leadership and competitive advantage through environmental managementsystem atandards. Eco-Management and Auditing 1998;5(1):6-14.

Schylander E, Zobel T. Environmental effects of EMS: evaluation of the evidence. In: Proceedings fromEvaluation of Sustainability European Conference – EASY-ECO 2. Vienna (Austria), 15-17 May 2003: 404-415.

Sunderland T. Environmental management standards and certification – Do they add value? In: Sheldon C. ISO14001 and Beyond – Environmental Management Systems in the Real World. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing,1998.Steger U. Environmental management systems: empirical evidence and further perspectives. EuropeanManagement Journal 2000;18(1):23-37.

Summers Raines S. Implementing ISO 14001 – an international survey assessing the benefits of certification.Corporate Environmental Strategy 2002;9(4):418-426.

Thedéen L. Miljöledningssystem i Brittiska Företag – Bättre Miljö och Högre Lönsamhet eller EndastMerarbete? Stockholm: Sveriges Tekniska Attachéer, 1996. (In Swedish)

Tyteca D, Carlens J, Berkhout F, Hertin J, Wehrmeyer W, Wagner M. Corporate environmental performance evaluation: evidence from the MEPI project. Business Strategy and the Environment 2002;11(1):1-13.

20

Wallace-Jones J. The use of voluntary approaches as environmental policy instruments. Feem Newsletter 1998;3: 15-17.

Wallner HP, Sebesta B, Wolf P, Spiegel C, Leitner T, Schauer K. Evaluation der Cleaner Production Programmein Österreich. Graz, 2000. (In German)

Wells RP, Galbraith D. Proyecto Guadalajara. Greener Management International 1999;28(Winter 1999):90-103.

Welsh JA, White JF. A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business Review1981;59(July/August):18-32.

Williams H, van Hooydonk A, Dingle P, Annandale D. Developing tailored environmental management systemsfor small business. Eco-Management and Auditing 2000;7(3):106-113.

Withers B, Ebrahimpour M. Does ISO 9000 certification affect the dimensions of quality used for competitiveadvantage? European Management Journal 2000:18(4):431-443.

Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,1994.

Zackrisson M, Enroth, M, Widing A. Environmental Management Systems – Paper Tiger or a Powerful Tool .Mölndal: IVF, 2000.

Reviewed publications not included in the reference list

Ammenberg J, Börjesson B, Hjelm O. Joint EMS and group certification: a cost-effective route for SMEs toachieve ISO 14001. Greener Management International 1999;28(Winter 1999):23-31.

Azzone G, Bianchi R, Noci G. Implementing environmental certification in Italy: managerial and competitiveimplications for firms. Eco-Management and Auditing 1997;4(3):98-108.

Christensen P, Holm Nielsen E. Implementing environmental management systems in Danish industry: Do wego beyond compliance? Eco-Management and Auditing 1996;3(2):56-62.

Dahlström K, Howes C, Leinster P, Skea J. Environmental management systems and company performance:assessing the case for extending risk-based regulation. European Environment 2003;13(4):187-203.

Darnall N, Rigling Gallagher D, Andrews RNL, Amaral D. Environmental management systems: opportunitiesfor improved environmental strategy? Environmental Quality Management 2000;9(3):1-9.

Dasgupta S, Hettige H, Wheeler D. What improves environmental compliance? Evidence from Mexicanindustry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2000;39(1):39-66.

Dyllick T, Hamschmidt J. Wirksamheit und Leistung von Umweltmanagementsystemen. Zürich:Hochschulverlag AG, 2000. (In German)

Freimann J, Schwedes R. EMAS experience in German companies: a survey on empirical studies. Eco-Management and Auditing 2000;7(3):99-105.

Hamschmidt J. Economic and ecological impacts of environmental management systems in companies:experiences from Switzerland. Proceedings from the Conference: EURO Environment. Aalborg (Denmark),October 18-20, 2000.

Kwon D-M, Seo, M-S, Seo, YC. A study of compliance with environmental regulations of ISO 14001 certifiedcompanies in Korea. Journal of Environmental Management 2002;65(4):347-353.

Melnyk SA, Sroufe RP, Calantone RL, Montabon FL Assessing the effectiveness of US voluntary environmentalprogrammes: an empirical study. International Journal of Production Research 2002;40(8):1853-1878.

21

Mohammed M. The ISO 14001 EMS Implementation process and its implications: a case study of central Japan.Environmental Management 2000;25(2):177-188.

Rondinelli D, Vastag G. Panacea, common sense, or just a label? The value of ISO 14001 environmentalmanagement. European Management Journal 2000;18(5):499-510.

Schylander E. Is EMS a tool that promotes environmental sustainability? – How organizations establish andfulfil their environmental targets in order to reduce environmental impacts. In: Proceedings from CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management. Nottingham (United Kingdom), 28-29 June 2004: 275-284.

Schylander E, Martinuzzi A. ISO 14001 – experiences, effects and future challenges – a national study inAustria. In: Schylander E. Environmental Effects and Organizational Experiences of EnvironmentalManagement Systems, Licentiate thesis 2004:31. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology, 2004.

Strachan P. Is the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) regulation an effective strategic marketing toolfor implementing industrial organizations? Eco-Management and Auditing 1999;6(1):42-51.

Strachan PA, McKay Sinclair I, Lal D. Managing ISO 14001 Implementation in the United KingdomContinental Shelf (UKCS). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2003;10(1):50-63.

Vastag G, Melnyk SA. Certifying environmental management systems by the ISO 14001 standard. InternationalJournal of Production Research 2002;40(18):4743-4763.

Welch EW, Mori Y, Aoyagi-Usui M. Voluntary adoption of ISO 14001 in Japan: mechanism, stages and effects.Business Strategy and the Environment 2002;11(1):43-62.

Zutshi A, Sohal A. Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons,benefits and impediments. Technovation 2004;24(4):335-357.

22

Appendix 1

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size (emp.)

Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Annandale et al. (2004)

Interviews with company representatives from 40 companies

Australia Unknown Unknown Primaryresources, construction, engineering and service, storage, processing and distribution, manufacturing, energy and wastemanagement

Positive impact on environmental performance (70 %) Systematic framework for tracking issues Provide focus and discipline Provide better documentation Overall driver for change Improved environmental awareness Improved pollution control Reduced energy use Reduced water use Assisting in assessment of risk Improved regulatory compliance

Andrews et al. (2003)

Standardised data collection protocol and questionnaires (61 companies)

USA Various Unknown Various Reduction of energy use (75 %) Reduction of water use (75 %) Reduction of material use (75 %) Reduction of waste (75 %) Increased employee involvement Fewer toxic emissions Improved regulatory compliance Improved regulator relationships Expedited permits Improved community relations Improved supplier and customer relations

Andrews et al. (2003)

Standardised data collection protocol and questionnaires (22 organisations)

USA Various Unknown Governmentfacilities

Improved awareness, involvement and competency Recognition of simple housekeeping measures Introduction of self-imposed requirements Better knowledge of operational hotspots Better knowledge of non-compliance causes Increased control over environmental issues Better methods for elimination of environmental violation

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Andrews et al. (2003) Darnall et al. (2000)

Case study USA ‘Do the right thing’ Move beyond regulatory compliance Customer pressure

90 Metalfinishing

To soon to see improvements in environmental performance Increased employee awareness Formal and systematic commitment

Andrews et al. (2003) Darnall et al. (2000)

Case study USA Historical environmental performance Desire to maintain a low-risk profile Desire to be an innovative operator

1000 Municipality Better evaluation of processes Better understanding of non-regulated impacts Choice of suppliers with less environmental impact Assurance of regulatory compliance

Andrews et al. (2003)

Case study USA Corporate level pressure 7000 Electronicsmanufacturing

Integration of environmental management into other activities Spread of responsibility Improved document control Improved operational control Improvement in employee transportation Broadened environmental management focus to include land use Reduction of energy use Increased focus on chemical handling Evaluation of on-site vendor contracts (Reduction of waste)

Andrews et al. (2003)

Case study USA Future customer pressure Competitive advantage Increase productivity of environmental programs Framework for reducing environmental impact

50 Manufacturingof electronic equipment

Increase in environmental awareness Spread of responsibility from EHS staff Introduction of assessment of environmental impact. Introduction of analysis of electricity use Introduction of waste water treatment Elimination of hazardous chemicals

Anton et al. (2004)

Statistical methods applied to data from databases (313 companies)

USA Unknown Unknown Manufacturing Lower toxic emissions

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Ammenberg & Hjelm (2003) Ammenberg & Hjelm (2002) Ammenberg et al. (1999)

Interviews with environmental co-ordinators in 25 companies

Sweden Unknown 10-80 Manufacturing, waste recycling,transportation, construction, trade, graphic industries.

Improved recycling of waste and hazardous waste Substitution of chemicals (50 %) Decrease of transportation (50 %) Improved storage of chemicals (Some companies) Improved storage of chemicals (Some companies) Introduction of district heating system Reduction of energy use

Azzone et al. (1997)

Questionnaire sent to 13 companies (Response rate 100 %)

Italy Legislative factors Expected improvement of relationships with external stakeholders Pressure from supply chain partners Expected improvement of internal efficiency

8-410 Chemicalmanufacturing

Shift of environmental variable from technical to strategicAdoption of long term environmental plans Shift to upstream activities Increased influence of the environmental manager More frequent use of teamwork Increased employee involvement in environmental activities Increase of internal efficiency No radical changes of organisational structure

Babakri et al. (2004)

Questionnaire sent to 584 companies (Response rate 30 %)

USA Unknown 1-50 (7 %), 51-250 (32 %), >251 (61 %)

Manufacturing Improved waste recycling performance

Berkhout et al. (2001) Tyteca et al. (2002)

Statistical analysis of variables in database (269 companies)

6Europeancountries

Unknown Manufacturing Companies with EMS do not appear to have greater environmental performance than those without

Berthelot et al. (2003)

Questionnaire sent to 546 companies in (Response rate 24 %)

Canada Various Unknown Various Less substantial benefits than one might expect Improved existing EMS Improved general environmental performance (90 %)

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Biondi et al. (2000)

Questionnaire sent to 39 promoters of EMS pilot studies (Response rate 72 %)

Various Europeancountries

Comply with legal requirements Competitive advantage Satisfy customer requirements

<250 Unknown Improved ability to manage and control environmental performance Improved definition of responsibilities and tasks More effective management of environmental risks Formalised procedures Improved skills Raised employee awareness Reduced energy use Improved waste management

Burström (2000) Case study Sweden Unknown Unknown Municipality More open attitudes among municipal professions towards other municipal professions Common language for environment-related communication and work

Bring Procopé & Axelsson (2003) Bring Procopé (2003)

Interviews with representatives from 39 companies

Sweden Customer pressure Owner pressure Improve environmental performance Improvement of regulatory compliance Systematisation of environmental activities

1-59 (39 %), 60-149 (16 %), >150 (45 %)

Unknown Continuous improvement of environmental performance (58 %) No environmental improvements at all (10%)

Chan & Li (2001) Two sets of questionnaires sent to 200 SMEs and 23 large companies (Response rate 41 % and 61 %)

Hong Kong

Gain market share (93 %) Show goodwill (86 %) Act as a promotion tool (79 %) Cost reduction (64 %) Comply with environmental legislation (50 %) Public pressure (29 %) Customer pressure (29 %) Employee pressure (7 %)

Unknown Watches, toysand games, garments, electronics and hotels

Environmental impact reduction (43 %) Environmental awareness improvement (36 %) Improved regulatory compliance

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Christensen & Dalby Rasmussen (1998)

Multiple case study at 12 companies

Denmark Comply with future requirements from different stakeholder groups To be in front of the development in a general senseAchieve more control of the company in a general sense

9-140 Printing houseindustry

Help with systematic way of thinking Better documented procedures Better operational control Improved internal communication Intensification of external communication Reduction of the number of contractors Reduced paper waste Introduction of environmental friendly paper VOC reduction Reduced waste of printing ink Reduction in energy use Reduction of waste water

Christensen & Holm Nielsen (1996)

Multiple case study at 15 companies

Denmark Incentives from the market Unknown Unknown Reduced energy use Reduced use of resources Life cycle considerations (40 %) Introduction of cleaner technologies

Dahlström et al. (2003)

Statistical analysis of data from database (800 conmpanies)

UK Unknown Unknown Manufacturing More rapid rates of improvement in environmental performance No change in likelihood of regulatory non-compliance

Dasgupta et al. (2000)

In-depth interviews with representatives from 236 companies

Mexico Unknown 16-100 (39 %), 100-250 (31 %), >250 (30 %)

Manufacturing (food, chemicals, non-metallic minerals, metals)

Improved regulatory compliance

Florida & Davison (2001)

Questionnaire sent to 425 companies (Response rate 50 %)

USA Commitment to environmental performance Corporate goals Business performance Community relations Regulations

Unknown Manufacturingindustries

Help to manage community relationships Reduced environmental risk for communities

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Freimann & Schwedes (2000) Freimann & Walther (2001)

Survey of other studies based on empirical data (Unknown number of organisations)

Germany Unknown Unknown Manufacturing Systematisation and documentation of competences Systematisation and documentation of processes of operational environmental care Assurance of regulatory compliance Not possible to see the effect on environmental performance

Fresner & Engelhardt (2004)

Case study Austria Unknown 18 Metal surfacetreatment

Better documentation Reduction of water use (60 %) Reduction of chemical and gas use (10 %)

Fresner & Engelhardt (2004)

Case study Austria Improve quality and profitability Maintain proactive image

80 Brewery Reduction of water use Reduction of waste

Fryxell & Szeto (2002)

Questionnaire sent to 56 companies (Response rate 52 %). Statistical analysis of questionnaire results.

Hong Kong

Various Unknown Unknown Improvement in environmental performance (27 of 29)

Giménez Leal et al. (2003)

Questionnaire sent to 1736 companies (Response rate 13 % for companies without EMS and 33 % for companies with EMS )

Spain Unknown Unknown Unknown Higher assurance of legal compliance (20 %) Improved resource optimisation (15 %)

Hamschmidt & Dyllick (2001) Hamschmidt (2000) Dyllick & Hamschmidt (2000)

Questionnaire sent to 348 companies (Response rate 45%). Interviews with certifying bodies. Four case studies.

Switzer-land

Various <250 (62 %), >250 (38 %)

Various Increase in importance of environmental topics (92 %) Modest improvements in eco-efficiency Some reduction in energy and material flow (60 %) Only supportive influence on env. performance Increased systematisation (75 %) Improved regulatory compliance (50 %) Risk minimisation Increase in employee motivation (50 %)

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size (emp.)

Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Hillary et al. (1998) Hillary (2004)

Telephone interviews with representatives from 140 companies

8Europeancountries

Unknown Unknown Manufacturing Improved environmental performance Better organisation Assured regulatory compliance Improved documentation Improved employees awareness

Hillary (1999) Hillary (2004)

Survey of 33 other studies based on empirical data (Unknown number of organisations)

9Europeancountries

Unknown Unknown Various Legal compliance is documented and can be demonstrated Increased energy and material efficiencies Increases waste recycling Reduced pollution Increased employee motivation, awareness and qualification

Ilomäki & Melanen (2001)

Multiple case study at 41 companies

Finland Stakeholder pressure Cost savings Environmental protection

13-250 The industrialsectors metal, chemicals, plastics, wood and paper products, textiles, food, construction, construction products

Full awareness of legal requirements Increased awareness of environmental impact Improved documentation No effect on waste minimisation

Kwon et al. (2002)

Statistical methods applied to data from databases (138 companies)

South Korea

Various Unknown Unknown Improved regulatory compliance

Melnyk et al. (2003) Melnyk et al. (2002) Vastag & Melnyk (2002)

Statistical analysis of data from a questionnaire sent to 15000 companies. (Response rate 10 %)

USA Unknown Unknown Manufacturing Limited impact on environmental performance

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Mohammed (2000)

Questionnaire sent to 106 companies( Response rate 58 %)

Japan Improving the environmental aspects inside the firm Enhancing the employees’ environmental awareness and environmental capacity-building Enhancing the companies’ image among the public Improving the management system of the environment inside the firms

Unknown Manufacturing Reduction of paper (69 %) Reduction of electricity use (52 %) Reduction of chemical and toxic materials use (52 %) Reduction of fuel consumption (52 %) Reduction of packaging volume for products (48 %) No change in NOx emissions (62%), SOx emissions (56 %), industrial waste water, particulate solids and environmental accidents

Morrow & Rondinelli (2002)

5 case studies Germany Various Unknown Energy andgas companies

Improvements in regulatory compliance Improvement in legal certainty Significant improvement in environmental documentation Increased level of organisational security Substantial improvements in employee awareness No significant improvements in environmental performance

Norén & von Malmborg (2004)

2 case studies Sweden Unknown Unknown Municipalities More distinct structure Better defined liability among officers Clearer information Greater awareness of environmental issues Simpler communication Integration of environmental issues in daily work

Pecher et al. (2002)

Survey of 13 other studies based on empirical data (Unknown number of organisations)

Austria Image Safeguard of legal compliance Optimisation of processes Savings on resources

Unknown Unknown No general conclusion can be made

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Poksinska et al. (2002)

Questionnaire sent to 268 companies (Response rate 53 %). Statistical analysis of questionnaire results.

Sweden Improvement of corporate image Marketing advantage Consumer pressure Relation with communities Relation with authorities

Unknown Manufacturing, services and construction

Substantial environmental improvements (72 %) Improvements in internal processes Improved relation with authorities

Robinson & Clegg (1998)

Case study UK Demonstration of commitment to the environment Competitive advantage Cost savings

63 Chemicalmanufacturing

Raised awareness about risks with chemicals Reduction of spillage and effluent Reduced health and safety risks Reduced potential for accidents Reduced energy use Introduction of a recycling system Introduction of a monitoring system for water use

Help to customers to reduce waste and non-compliance Rondinelli & Vastag (2000) Vastag & Melnyk, 2002)

Case study USA Improvement of the company’s overall operations Publicly demonstrate environmental commitmentCompetitive advantage Environmental benefits

600 Aluminiumingot production

More aware of environmental aspects, regulation and impact Improved existing practices More and better record keeping Improved documentation Identified weaknesses in safety Spread of knowledge about environmental regulation Help to achieve environmental. goals Reduction of waste and hazardous waste Halved the number of chemicals Assuring contractors awareness of procedures

Schylander (2004) Case study. Sweden Pressure from parent company

Unknown Hydropowercompany

27 of 31 environmental goals fulfilled Reduction of hazardous waste Reduction of discharges of oil to water Reduction of use of mercury

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Schylander & Martinuzzi (2004)

Questionnaire sent to 501 companies in Austria (Response rate 24 %)

Austria Improve public image Ensure regulatory compliance

<250 (69 %), >250 (31 %)

Industry and service and trade

Increased awareness among employees and top management Improved regulatory compliance Improved systematisation of environmental activities Risk minimisation Reduced waste Improved waste recycling No effects on emissions to soil or transports No effect on product activities

Steger (2000) Review of 14 other studies (Unknown number of organisations)

8countries in Europe andNorth America

Unknown Unknown Unknown Increased regulatory compliance More transparent and effective organisation Lower risk of liabilities Allocation of responsibility Improved information flow Raised awareness among top management

Strachan (1999) Strachan et al. (1997)

Questionnaire sent to 18 companies (Response rate 82 %). Telephone interviews with representatives from 15 companies)

Demonstrate environmental assurance Formalisation of the management system Competitive advantage Regulatory compliance

Unknown Unknown Tool for improvement Better knowledge of processes Increased regulatory compliance

Strachan et al. (2003)

Interviews with representatives from 4 companies

UK Demonstrate compliance with an international environmental management standard Better relationship with stakeholders Improvement in environmental performance standard Improvement in internal business efficiency

Unknown Oil and gasoperators

Increase in general awareness of environmental issues Help to anticipate changes in legislation Reduced incidents of non-compliance Improved environmental performance

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Summers Raines (2002)

Questionnaire sent to 354 companies (Response rate 37 %)

15 countries world-wide

Various Unknown Various Reduced energy use (56 %) Reduced waste disposal (56 %) Overall reduced recourse use (44 %) Improved regulatory compliance (21 %)

Thedéen (1996) Case study UK Customer pressure 38 Printing house Higher interest in environmental issues among employees Reduction of waste Improved chemical handling Reduction of energy use

Thedéen (1996) Case study UK Customer pressure Earlier poor environmental performance

150 Paper mill Hard to measure benefits Improved regulatory compliance

Thedéen (1996) Case study UK Improve poor environmental performance

620 Power station Increased awareness Reduction of emissions Reduction of waste Improved waste recycling Better documented procedures Reduction of dust and noise complaints Assurance of regulatory compliance

Thedéen (1996) Case study UK Assurance of regulatory compliance More effective environmental management

3000 Power stations Systematic way of working Improved energy efficiency Reduction of water use Reduction of waste Reduction of emissions Improved regulatory compliance Increase of employees’ interest in environmental. issues

Study Methodology Country EMS adoption drivers Org. size

(emp.)Businesssector

Benefits of EMS

Wallner et al. (2000)

Questionnaire sent to 498 organisations (Response rate 26 %). Interviews with 44 of the responding companies.

Austria Unknown Unknown Various Reduction of waste Improved recycling of paper Reduction of waste water Reduction of packaging material Reduction of water use No reduction of electricity, fuel oil and gas No effect on scrap metal, packaging waste or hazardous waste

Welch et al. (1999)

Questionnaire sent to 2918 companies (Response rate 28 %)

Japan Unknown Unknown Chemicalmanufacturing, electronics, electricmachinery and electric power

Higher level of greening activity

Wells & Galbraith (1999)

Action research in an unknown number of companies

Mexico Unknown 3-230 Construction,chemical manufacturing, automotive parts, environmental services and printing.

‘Good housekeeping’ measures Process changes Reduction of materials and energy use Improved regulatory compliance Higher awareness of environmental. issues

Zackrisson et al. (2000)

Questionnaire sent to 360 companies (Response rate 49 %). In-depth interviews with 19 companies.

Sweden Competitive advantage Owner pressure Customer pressure

<100 (51 %), >100 (49 %)

Various Improved waste recycling Reduction of waste Safer handling of chemicals Reduction of energy use Reduced emissions

Zutshi & Sohal (2004)

Statistical analysis of data from questionnaires sent to 286 organisations (Resp. rate 48 %).

Australia, New Zealand

Various <20 (21 %), 20-199 (5 %), >200 (74 %)

Various Improved regulatory compliance Reduction of health, safety and environmental risks Reduction of waste Improved morale building